These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#421 - 2011-11-07 15:20:45 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Montevius Williams wrote:
Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out.


I would like to know the answer to this as well.



Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking.
Lexmana
#422 - 2011-11-07 15:28:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Montevius Williams wrote:
Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out.


I would like to know the answer to this as well.



Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking.


This ^^

I am amazed that so many are lacking common sense. Maybe you all can learn a real lesson in EvE.

EvE is real.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#423 - 2011-11-07 15:40:04 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. This change makes complete sense and should be implemented. I can't imagine why any insurance company would want to reward someone for breaking the law. Last time I checked...if your car is shot up because it was the getaway car in an armed robbery the insurance company does not pay for your repairs.

A little more common sense in EvE. This is a good thing.


No insurance company would pay out for just about any of the shiploss scenarios that currently get an insurance payment.

You're saying it's "common sense" that we get do insurance for a ship we lost to self-destructing, taking a ship into a known warzone, deliberately hunting pirates, bubbling yourself in the middle of an enemy fleet, etc, but not for shooting a hauler? No "real" insurance company would pay for any of those losses.

Just about the only common ship-loss scenario that a "real" insurance company would pay out for is, ironically, one for which EVE Insurance doesn't pay - when a ship is stolen from a hangar.

Indeed, one might almost think that "common sense" would bring us to the conclusion that EVE insurance is nothing in common with "real" insurance except the name.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

yumike
Doomheim
#424 - 2011-11-07 15:43:11 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers.

Simply put, You are wrong.
The biggest advocater in this thread how this is a bad idea has self-admittedly never suicide ganked.

I've easily suicide ganked 80~ or so ships across 4 characters and think this is a great change.

Stereotypes are bad okay?
Generals4
#425 - 2011-11-07 15:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Generals4
I don't get why people complain. Sure it might dissuade a couple of suicide gankers but lets not forget dessies are getting a buff and tier 3 BC's will be awesome suicide gankers. So we have two changes which favor suicide ganking and one which dissuades it and people whine about the death of suicide ganking?! The only thing this will change is a reduction in isk creation through insurance, which is good.

_-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. _

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#426 - 2011-11-07 15:56:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Why does Tipsy keep harping on about "false sense of security"? Most high sec dwellers don't read dev blogs fully or come on the forums, so they will be unaware of this change. It is really just the gankers that will notice it.
Because safety in highsec is what you create for yourself. It seems more and more common that people expect the game to keep them safe, when it is in fact they themselves that have that responsibility. Highsec is no different from any other kind of space in this regard, and that's what they are missing. It is this false sense of security I'm talking about: people who assume that they don't/shouldn't have to do anything to protect themselves because they are in “safe” space.

The best thing that can happen to these people is not to make the space they're in safer — it's to teach them how to make it safe. Why do you keep hearing the “the real carebears are in deep null” bitterwhine? Because it's true, because those people are part of groups who have made their space safe. Nothing beats the safety you create for yourself. Nor should it, imo — if you can't create that safety, you should be left with your arse hanging out.

Pandering to their false sense of security by fiddling with the mechanics they (incorrectly) think are there to make them safe will only make them even less inclined to create any actual safety for themselves and will thus make them less safe. They will engage in far more risk behaviour than before and get even more upset when it turns out that their behaviour got them killed.

This is why I think highsec safety needs to be rolled back: because as CONCORD and insurance have been adjusted over the years, people have just become more and more stupid in how they think about their own safety. Easing off on those adjustments would send the signal that, no, you are indeed not safe unless you do something about it yourself, and thus increase people's use of safety tactics and techniques. Making the space less safe will (seemingly paradoxically) make the people in it more safe (or, rather, more risk-aware, which leads to safer behaviour).
March rabbit wrote:

ask Tippia:
- her hulks are not-killable by 2-3 alpha-tempest
- her scounts are able to detect any links between chars in game to detect if they are in 1 gank or not

Three is iffy and you'll need to get lucky. Two is definitely possible to tank against (unless they get lucky with the die rolls… but on average).

And it's not about detecting some kind of link — it's about detecting a situation; noticing things that are not as they should be; noticing people who behave oddly; in short, about a healhty(?!) dose of paranoia… Twisted

Remember the old adages: it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you, and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#427 - 2011-11-07 16:06:03 UTC
Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic.

So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one


Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son!

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#428 - 2011-11-07 16:23:04 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Dear god the level of the TEARS on this thread is epic.

So you LADIES cannot GANK anyone because OH NOES ITS TO EXPENSIVEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!11111111111one


Grow a pair, grab your Tornado and gank that boat, son!


Im starting to think people who post things like this arn't being entirely honest about reading this topic.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2011-11-07 16:23:25 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Scalar Angulargf wrote:
The F Word wrote:
This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP.


What?

Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.

If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW


And why do you care ?

it's maybe because everyone ignores him? Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#430 - 2011-11-07 16:32:22 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.


Quoting for prosterity.

So Tippia, them apples???

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Kheper Ra
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#431 - 2011-11-07 16:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kheper Ra
Tippia wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
High sec isn't completely safe.
It pretty much was before this, and this change — if intentional — inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go.
Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.


A little late on this post..

Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.

After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.

And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.

Can I have your stuff?
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2011-11-07 16:51:33 UTC
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.

Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#433 - 2011-11-07 16:56:54 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.

Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?


Actually it gets easier, even without insurance the money spent will be at best equal to the current state.

Unless we are speaking about 5 mil ISK, dessie, which is quite pointless honestly.
Drakarin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#434 - 2011-11-07 17:01:01 UTC
It makes logical sense, because no police force would allow an insurance payout to a criminal they just destroyed.

Imagine for instance you were in a death match race with another car and won but it was unprovoked. The police arrive and as punishment destroy your vehicle. Do you honestly think they would allow the insurance company to pay you anything? Of course not.

It makes no sense at all that you get insurance all the time, let alone from breaking the law. Personally, I say remove insurance entirely. It's one HUGE isk faucet and makes the game much easier.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#435 - 2011-11-07 17:01:55 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.

Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?



No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.
Lexmana
#436 - 2011-11-07 17:02:36 UTC
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.

After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.

And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.

Can I have your stuff?


in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.

It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.

If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.


MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#437 - 2011-11-07 17:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
baltec1 wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.

Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?



No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.


Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care and how much you aren't crying about it Blink.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#438 - 2011-11-07 17:04:40 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.

After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.

And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.

Can I have your stuff?


in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.

It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.

If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.




Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post.

Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ???

Just cant get it.
Lexmana
#439 - 2011-11-07 17:06:20 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.

After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.

And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.

Can I have your stuff?


in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.

It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.

If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.




Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post.

Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ???

Just cant get it.



EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#440 - 2011-11-07 17:07:04 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
So suicide ganking becomes a tiny little bit more challenging. Not removed, just they no longer receive insurance money. Suicide ganking is brought a little bit more in line on where it should be and... grief/lulz players and gankers go ballistic flooding this thread with tears and screams of unfairness. Wow, the very same folks that preach "HTFU" and other such mantra.

Is it too soon if I say "C'mon folks, it's just pixels."?



No this thread is full of gankers who dont care about the change, people like you who are chest beating about tears which arn't there and tippia baiting.


Of course you don't care and aren't crying about it. That's why you're here posting to let me know how much you don't care Blink.


Im waiting for night to finish on minecraft so I can get back to building my temple without the creepers getting meBlink