These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#681 - 2011-11-08 23:58:43 UTC
K Suri wrote:
An interesting point but how many suicide ganks are funded by a massive alliance with trillions of isk at their disposal? I see that as a massive and unfair advantage.

Of course, if CCP declare that might is right (and it will forever remain) and you use it as justification to destroy small players repeatedly then it's non-arguable isn't it?

Which is the point of debate. Is this kind of mechanic acceptable to the majority and does CCP need to address this?

It's CCP's game and they can declare whatever they want and make any changes they want. They also have to suffer the consequences if after running Eve for several years now they decide to completely change the tone of the game and its mechanics. You can badpost about it as much as you want but at the end of the day the monthly cancellation report is going to speak louder than anything you or I say.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#682 - 2011-11-09 00:03:20 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
And NOW, ladies and gentlemen, we finally get to that compromise thing that I mentioned earlier. You see, when you put something like that on the table, insurance nerfs and CONCORD buffs are a lot easier to swallow. Unfortunately for you, you've just alienated yourself from the people you're trying to protect. Proposing a decrease in high-sec rewards makes you carebear public enemy #1. You're one of us now. Might as well suit up one of those Tempests.



Who would I be the enemy of?

There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.

Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.

There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#683 - 2011-11-09 00:06:43 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

The chief complaint, and one seen by lowsec and 0.0 dwellers, that I agree with is that highsec is too safe for the ISK it yeilds.



wooot couldn't ever imagine a single high sec alliance is making trillions per month with single moon goo, some clicks and hauling, indeed high sec is way too rich.


How much serious you guys are to say how much income represents bots in null? -or income from renting, oups sory, small tax going from 1 to several billions per month for space you don't defend when those guys get ganked with the same old rabble "sry we were too late and we don't like baby sitting, here pick a pos PW and location, hugh it when neuts are in local"


Lol
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#684 - 2011-11-09 00:09:42 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who would I be the enemy of?

There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.

Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.

There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders.

Highsec carebear pubbies are just about the worst people in Eve (roleplayers are still the absolute worst). These are the people that play Eve like its a single player game and provide absolutely nothing to the community at large. They sit and mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours to make isk to buy better ships that they will use to mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours. Then they have the nerve to complain about how nullsec works. Or how aggression mechanics work. Or ***** and moan about missions being boring until CCP gifts them Incursions...the greatest isk-making machine with zero risk ever seen in the game. It's a tragedy that CCP drove so many real Eve players out of the game in the last 18 months because now they *have* to cater to the pubbie hordes just to keep the lights on. It's a sad thing to see.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

K Suri
Doomheim
#685 - 2011-11-09 00:15:36 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
An interesting point but how many suicide ganks are funded by a massive alliance with trillions of isk at their disposal? I see that as a massive and unfair advantage.

Of course, if CCP declare that might is right (and it will forever remain) and you use it as justification to destroy small players repeatedly then it's non-arguable isn't it?

Which is the point of debate. Is this kind of mechanic acceptable to the majority and does CCP need to address this?

It's CCP's game and they can declare whatever they want and make any changes they want. They also have to suffer the consequences if after running Eve for several years now they decide to completely change the tone of the game and its mechanics. You can badpost about it as much as you want but at the end of the day the monthly cancellation report is going to speak louder than anything you or I say.

That fact is not disputed. But the reality is that how many WOULD actually quit if suicide ganking were removed from the game?

Even more importantly, why should it even bother a 0.0 alliance? I mean, let's face it, you could merc hire or wardec anyone you like at whatever the cost.

I'm inclined to think that it could be removed PROVIDING other changes to high-sec war mechanics are also made. I do not believe we need Invulnerability Level 6 to play Eve but I do think part of the reason suicide ganking is "neccessary", if that's the right word, is because death by destruction is too easily mitgated by corp hopping and hiding in NCP corps.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#686 - 2011-11-09 00:17:42 UTC
K Suri wrote:

Even more importantly, why should it even bother a 0.0 alliance? I mean, let's face it, you could merc hire or wardec anyone you like at whatever the cost.

You don't need to look for any deep meaning. It's fun to make pubbies rage and that's why we do it. Where they live is irrelevant but since most of them live in highsec that's where we go to blow them up.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

K Suri
Doomheim
#687 - 2011-11-09 00:19:29 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Who would I be the enemy of?

There is a kind of player who is little more than an ISK -snatcher. This is the type of player who rages if the mining bonus of their ship gets dropped 2 percent. To that kind of player I cannot think of a game for them. When it's all about racking up ISK ISK and more ISK and ANYTHING that take away so much as .01 ISK means the game is broken to them, I don't know what to say.

Yes they do exist. But I know what kind of game a griefer is playing, and what kind a PVPer is after, as well as what the 0.0 and lowsec people in all their various stripes are after (exploration, fleet fights, conquest, good stuff). But these ISK fanatics are almost as bad as the KM addicts.

There was an EvE banner ad a while back that shows clips of game activities over a ever-increasing number meter that looks like an ISKometer. I think that kind of advertising attracted the sort of person whose entire reality is based on that number being bigger and not getting smaller. I would say that a KM addict is such a person who got ganked or that such a person into racking up big ISK number might have once been a KM addict who got ganked. Either way they have a strange obsession and they would be better off working as bond traders.

Highsec carebear pubbies are just about the worst people in Eve (roleplayers are still the absolute worst). These are the people that play Eve like its a single player game and provide absolutely nothing to the community at large. They sit and mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours to make isk to buy better ships that they will use to mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours. Then they have the nerve to complain about how nullsec works. Or how aggression mechanics work. Or ***** and moan about missions being boring until CCP gifts them Incursions...the greatest isk-making machine with zero risk ever seen in the game. It's a tragedy that CCP drove so many real Eve players out of the game in the last 18 months because now they *have* to cater to the pubbie hordes just to keep the lights on. It's a sad thing to see.

Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.

Your opinion on "highsec pubbies" is just that - an opinion. It is neither the cause or effect of any loss of subs you prattle about. For all the hoohaa, nothing seems to have really changed.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#688 - 2011-11-09 00:21:35 UTC
K Suri wrote:
Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.

When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

K Suri
Doomheim
#689 - 2011-11-09 00:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: K Suri
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.

When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag.

So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game?

At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game?

Interesting POV.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#690 - 2011-11-09 00:29:25 UTC
K Suri wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.

When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag.

So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game?

At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game?

Interesting POV.

I'm not saying either of those things and I'm confused about why you think I am.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

K Suri
Doomheim
#691 - 2011-11-09 00:33:49 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
Bullshit. I logged on Saturday night and saw over 48,000 online. Highest it's been for a long time. It's coming back to where it was and no changes have even been made to anything.

When I talked about CCP running people out of the game I meant all the people who used to live in nullsec that quit because of supercaps online and the sanctum nerf. Most of them haven't returned and have been replaced by people who think the game should have a PvP on/off flag.

So you're admitting that all the rage, whining and complaints made by nullseccers and changed by CCP hasn't bought people back to the game?

At the same time you're also saying that all the rage, whining and complaints made by non-nullseccers requesting changes by CCP won't bring MORE people back and into the game?

Interesting POV.

I'm not saying either of those things and I'm confused about why you think I am.

I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?

If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#692 - 2011-11-09 01:01:54 UTC
K Suri wrote:
I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?

If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less.

Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

K Suri
Doomheim
#693 - 2011-11-09 01:12:33 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?

If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less.

Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it.

I'm not confused.

Based on recent 48k logins, either CCP has pulled a huge number of new subs which they may need to cater for OR the 0.0 complainers came back despite all the apparent unsubs you elude to.

Either way, the complaints must have fallen on deaf ears.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#694 - 2011-11-09 01:20:07 UTC
K Suri wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?

If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less.

Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it.

I'm not confused.

Based on recent 48k logins, either CCP has pulled a huge number of new subs which they may need to cater for OR the 0.0 complainers came back despite all the apparent unsubs you elude to.

Either way, the complaints must have fallen on deaf ears.

According to Eve Offline 48k isn't a vast improvement. There are new people coming in but not the huge numbers you seem to think. There are a bunch of older players that are waiting to see what happens with the Winter expansion to see if they're coming back or not.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#695 - 2011-11-09 01:29:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jojo Jackson
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
then a lot of "pvpers" will have no reason to maintain their subscriptions


PvP = Player vis Player

This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.

Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger
The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).

This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP !
It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).

So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!

PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.

And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES!

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#696 - 2011-11-09 01:31:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
The only time an activity in game is not PvP is ship spinning, CQing, and sometimes when you gank (if you hit a bot).

Everything else is a player vs another player (or more).


For your benefit, PvP = player verses player, meaning only one side need to participate as long as there are two (or more) players involved.

And there are ways to be safer while mining. Most don't use them because they want to play easymode. Fine, they can do that. It means the gankers get easymode too.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#697 - 2011-11-09 01:33:05 UTC
Jojo Jackson wrote:


PvP = Player vis Player

This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.

Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger
The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).

This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP !
It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).

So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!

PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.

And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES!

This has to be a troll. If it's not it's literally the dumbest thing I've read on these forums.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#698 - 2011-11-09 01:37:19 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:

Highsec carebear pubbies are just about the worst people in Eve (roleplayers are still the absolute worst). These are the people that play Eve like its a single player game and provide absolutely nothing to the community at large. They sit and mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours to make isk to buy better ships that they will use to mine rocks for hours or run level 4 missions for hours. Then they have the nerve to complain about how nullsec works. Or how aggression mechanics work. Or ***** and moan about missions being boring until CCP gifts them Incursions...the greatest isk-making machine with zero risk ever seen in the game. It's a tragedy that CCP drove so many real Eve players out of the game in the last 18 months because now they *have* to cater to the pubbie hordes just to keep the lights on. It's a sad thing to see.


This goon has a heart... a sore heart, burdened by the weight of having to suffer people who want to be left alone in their Internet Spaceship.

Don't grieve, formerly lulzy and now weary griefer ! CCP knows fully well how to make a profit. If EvE gameplay condones griefing, it's not because CCP wants to make a few thousand online sociopaths happy, but because those people have a rather positive effect on the playerbase count: they keep it small, hence manageable on a single server, and motivate people to buy secondary accounts, as well as PLEX.

The insurance nerf is in no way hampering, as it has been said. The new BCs are a clear sign that ganking is here to stay.

Remove Concord, make kill rights transferable, change gateguns mechanics (introduce tracking)

K Suri
Doomheim
#699 - 2011-11-09 01:38:45 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
K Suri wrote:
I think I'm trying to fathom your comment about disenfranchised nullseccers are being "replaced" by whiney highseccers wanting on/off switches?

If this is actually true then catering for the highsec population is even MORE critical, not less.

Which was exactly my point when I said that it was too bad that CCP ran real Eve players (people who understood that the Eve universe was supposed to be a harsh place) out of the game because now they *have* to cater to the highsec carebears just to stay in business. It wasn't a complicated concept and I'm not sure why you were confused about it.

I'm not confused.

Based on recent 48k logins, either CCP has pulled a huge number of new subs which they may need to cater for OR the 0.0 complainers came back despite all the apparent unsubs you elude to.

Either way, the complaints must have fallen on deaf ears.

According to Eve Offline 48k isn't a vast improvement. There are new people coming in but not the huge numbers you seem to think. There are a bunch of older players that are waiting to see what happens with the Winter expansion to see if they're coming back or not.

Tell you what, I wouldn't mind drawing an aggregate line on the 3 month stats. Looks to me like a steady and sustainable upward trend. No it's not "huge numbers", but I didn't say that. I said it's either a huge number of NEW subs OR older players ARE coming back which is contrary to your view.

The good news is that it's up and this is without the winter expansion. No cap nerfs, no sanctum buffs have happened yet so if we are yet to include 0.0 pilots then things are very positive indeed.
Jerek Mothas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#700 - 2011-11-09 01:39:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerek Mothas
While I agree to some extent (not being much of a PvPer myself) that ganking is a part of the game and should not be completely removed, I do think that the opinions of some of the players in this thread are treading a little too close to the "remove security levels completely" line. If ganking is made too easy, then no space will be even remotely safe, which is the whole point of highsec: a place where noobs won't get ganked when they first step in the door, or a place where people who aren't much into PvP can relax a bit (though, of course, not completely, due to gankers).

I'm not saying ganking and scams should disappear completely, but that they shouldn't be allowed to get excessively out of control in empire space. To use a sandbox metaphor, yes, you can kick someone's sandcastle down, but does that mean that you should be allowed to ruin everyone's day by kicking down all the sandcastles in sight just because they aren't what you think they should look like? (Especially when someone's never done it before. They're probably going to leave the sandbox and find some place where they can at least get the hang of things first.) If ganking gets out of control, any new players come in will probably leave after they get ganked 10+ times and not return, in addition to all the carebears who don't like explosions. Myself included - I play casually, and don't have a massive income, but does that mean I shouldn't be able to ever afford to fly expensive ships just because some jerk feels that carebearing is stupid and keeps blowing my ships up before I can make a decent living?

My point is, PvP is supplemented by player presence and minerals. If all but the most hardcore leave the game, all the miners selling minerals, the noobs and high-sec casuals buying ships, etc. will mostly be gone, leaving the game with a severe deficit of...well...pretty much everything.

TL;DR: Yes, ganking is good because more ships get sold, but being allowed to kill everyone you see = subscription decrease, lack of minerals, ship sinks gone = smaller game = less-funded game = FREEVE Online = sucky. And if you say "EVE Online is a PvP game", I will laugh at your narrowmindedness. I never joined EVE with the intention of PvPing, and although I'm starting to now, that doesn't mean I won't leave if this becomes a gankfest. A gank a day keeps the market in play, but a gank an hour leaves the market cold and sour.

Thank you for reading this massive message.

EDIT: Grief =/= Gank, silly me... Roll

Failfitting ships since 2007.

"Those who control their tongue will have a long life; opening your mouth can ruin everything." - Solomon