These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenshae Chiroptera
#501 - 2011-11-07 23:45:53 UTC
500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#502 - 2011-11-07 23:52:23 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?


Has you often say, don't bring reality in to an MMO.

And it's a nice way to burn some isk for those who have too much like big alliances, also those who gank for profit need to learn some accounting skills if this is implemented. Those who don't? -go pvp in low sec or null Twisted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#503 - 2011-11-07 23:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Fille Balle wrote:
Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew?
The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics.

The “safe” character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way.
The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvP… but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.

If the former is allowed to be safe from pew pew, then the latter needs to be allowed to be safe from the market, and at that point, the whole game collapses because of how central both market and pew pew are.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
500 replies and Tipsy is still frothing at the mouth. How much longer can they go without sleep? Join us later for an update. Blink
Where do you get “frothing” from? I think you're imagining things… Ugh
And why am I in plural? (Yes, I'm aware of the singular they, but that particular uncertainty shouldn't exist here, and even if it were, I'm not sure singular they would be applicable anyway).
Oh, and I have slept plenty over the last few days, thank you very much, so you're imagining that too.

Are you sleeping well? They say you get a bit delirious if you stay up for too long…
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#504 - 2011-11-07 23:56:11 UTC
Minor effect really. When you play long enough you get to a point where you stop insuring ships, especially when the modules plugged into it are at such a greater loss being able to absorb said loss leaves the loss of the hull price seemingly trivial.

But the griefer tears in here sustain me and I relish in them.


Oh oh. That makes me a griefer!!!1!!! Oh nooooes!

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#505 - 2011-11-08 00:13:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
How does it restrict them when they can do the exact same things they're doing now? They just have to be a bit smart about it, and my ideas are there to make the value of smarts more clear.

You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here? You really don't know how converting hi sec into 0.0 will affect hi sec players? I just don't know how to explain it any clearer to you. I'm sorry.

Quote:
No. PvP should come effortlessly from those who need to disrupt the activities of their opponents to those who try to hide those activities in highsec. In particular, I want it to be worth-while to have null/low-sec entities to actually base their industrial backbone in null/lowsec, rather than keeping it protected in highsec. This means making it easier to counter all the tactics that are used to put these support efforts at arms-length to the point where those entities are better off moving all of that to their home turf where it can be properly protected.

All this at the cost of hi sec players. Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style. Some people just aren't interested in having to buy a second account to get an scout alt or joing a mega alliance just move in hi sec because Tippia wants CONCORD removed from hi sec (and fails to see how this change affects hi sec players).

Quote:
Should it? According to whom?

According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null. That you disagree with this, well, that's just fine by me.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Jita Alt666
#506 - 2011-11-08 00:27:12 UTC
Tippia: Your posts in this thread make sense and are reasonable (although off topic). You are being trolled (repeatedly) by a few forum dwellers who are not interested in expanding their understanding, but merely in arguing. Please don't feed them.

Matrix: The hub of the matter is that Eve Online is one continuous universe that embraces different player styles/types. Some feel changes that are occurring in Empire are the thin end of the wedge in creating different player zones with Empire looking increasingly like completely safe space.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#507 - 2011-11-08 00:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
You don't know how removing CONCORD from hi sec restricts the game play of others? Tippia, you honestly expect me to believe you're not trolling here?
Ah, I understand what's confusing you now. No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD — I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier.
Quote:
All this at the cost of hi sec players.
Not necessarily. That all depends on how well they can learn to deal with the risks and to mitigate them.
Quote:
Like I said, you don't care that there are many many players living in hi sec because it accommodates their play style.
And I'm asking, why can't it accommodate their play style and still be dangerous? Why are their play styles so utterly incompatible with taking precautions and planning for safety? I'm sure someone will try to twist what I said above into some kind of “aha! so you are trying to force people to play a certain way”, but that hinges on an assumption that what they're doing now is utterly impossible to do safely… and I reject that assumption as absurdly false.
Quote:
According to CCP. It's been made crystal clear that hi sec is meant to be safer than lo and null.
And it is, nor am I suggesting that it shouldn't be. I read your “should be safer” as “should be safer than it is” not as “should be safer than low/null”. If you think that I'm arguing for a removal of highsec, you haven't read what I'm writing. I'm simply arguing that it should only be “high” sec — no the complete-sec that it's edging towards and that some people want to see. I'm arguing that it has already moved too far in that direction and that it can be dialled back quite a bit and still offer the relative safety that some players like — in fact, doing so will actually make those players safer because it makes them understand the need and usefulness of various safety behaviours.

Nullsec shows us this already: safety for the player is something rather different than the safety of system and its mechanics.
Vordel
Perkone
Caldari State
#508 - 2011-11-08 00:38:02 UTC
Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.

The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.

With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.

If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.

Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp

6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo
7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo
2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo


With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#509 - 2011-11-08 00:38:27 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.


Awww, suicide gankers are gonna hafta grow up and pull away from the Pend Insurance teet? POOR BABIES!
Jita Alt666
#510 - 2011-11-08 00:41:02 UTC
Vordel wrote:
Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.

The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.

With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.

If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.

Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp

6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo
7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo
2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo


With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.


That is an interesting point.
K Suri
Doomheim
#511 - 2011-11-08 00:43:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
blab

How did you get to be such an expert in the game? You are a 5.0 sec status player in a 4 man corp running at 100% tax. It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Yet your opinions seems to cover every facet of the game with quite incredible detail.

Amazing stuff Tippia. Simply amazing.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2011-11-08 00:45:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It's not about the impact — it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.


This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#513 - 2011-11-08 00:45:23 UTC
ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.

I'm enjoying the tears.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#514 - 2011-11-08 00:50:00 UTC
Denidil wrote:
ITT: gankers whine like bitches about broken mechanic being fixed.

I'm enjoying the tears.


It's such a refreshing reversal of fortunes, isn't it? Big smile

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#515 - 2011-11-08 00:50:48 UTC
Vordel wrote:
Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.

The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.

With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.

If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.

Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp

6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo
7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo
2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo


With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.


The old guideline was 5000 ISK/EHP (freighters basically have 200k EHP) - which is why Red Frog sets a 1B ISK as the max collateral. Except that with the advent of the tier3 BCs, damage per million ISK spent was going to go up drastically. Removal of insurance will probably even that out a bit.

So, basically a wash - and the 1B ISK number will probably still stay as the tipping point for freighter ganks.
Jita Alt666
#516 - 2011-11-08 00:51:22 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Tippia wrote:
It's not about the impact — it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.


This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.



I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#517 - 2011-11-08 00:51:45 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Tippia wrote:
It's not about the impact — it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.


This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.



Queue Tippia's usual "Eve is not the real world" spiel followed by 20 uses of the word "Why?" as an arguing tactic.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2011-11-08 00:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Andreus Ixiris
Jita Alt666 wrote:
I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company.


That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#519 - 2011-11-08 00:57:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fille Balle wrote:
Where's the problem with players being safe from pew pew in a pvp centric game where pvp =/= pew pew?
The problem is that it would create asymmetry in the available PvP tactics.

The “safe” character sucks at pew pew-PvP, but owns at market-PvP, so he engages the enemy that way.
The enemy, on the other hand, sucks at market-PvP, but owns at pew pew-PvP… but he can't engage the enemy that way because the enemy is, as it were, safe.


So... nobody is allowed to stay docked and use alts for transporting stuff etc.? And it's ok to force people to pew pew but it's not ok to force people to pvp in other manners?

No, I don't see a problem here. Move along, nothing to see here.

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
K Suri
Doomheim
#520 - 2011-11-08 01:05:09 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Jita Alt666 wrote:
I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company.


That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes.

With the common theme being more about speculation than supply/demand.