These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#841 - 2011-11-09 18:57:18 UTC
If you carebears think that loss of insurance payouts is gonna stop ppl from ganking your ****, you are sorely mistaken.

The only 'profit' I seek is your corpse, and your tears.

Now that being said, I could see this making freighter ganks, or any ganks requiring a battleship less frequent, but when a hulk gank only costs me 5 mil in thrashers it's still worth it.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#842 - 2011-11-09 18:57:20 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:



The whole high sec mechanics are helping the wrong pvp crowd more than every other high sec activity and that's a fact.

At this point you should be in low/null making your own place, but you don't, because you're just incapable of.
You're uber pvp guys against defenceless players and just has those you like the relative security of high sec while by just creating a player corporation this should mean you have some balls to go fight in null/low, you just don't once again.

You, your corporation, and all of those high sec grieffers are a real plague for this game community development.
The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.

You just don't want to follow rules of big alliances, but you want rules to protect you and you sure don't want mechanics to protect high sec miners or whatever from you. You are a terrible human being Lol




Actually suicide ganking and the destruction of large fleets of ice mining is to me a very interesting gambit on null sec warfare perpetrated by the Goons. Yeah the lil guys will obviously be affected and whine and tell people how bad human beings they are. But why dont you go mine somewhere else? Or a different ice type? Why stay in the same area that you KNOW danger is in and persist and then call it a bad mechanic when you die? The Goons and many of the trade route suiciders have been in game now for quite a while and its no real secret that its happening yet people still insist on going and doing the thing thats most dangerous and claiming that they have some inherent right and CCP needs to fix a bad mechanic for them.

Now you also say that anyone that goes to low or null and gets blown up knows the risks and doesnt have any right to complain one iota about dying there because they KNOW yet those high sec denizens that have been playing for months and years, that also know of suicide ganking and the Goons Ice Interdiction efforts and that still persist are somehow allowed to complain?


As for the natural progression you say must occur is silly. Ive been all over Eve and its kind of stupid to just say that older players must be limited to null sec or low sec. In fact thats you imposing upon a player the playing style they must choose and thats rather stupid. I can then say the same to you; do not mine or haul in high sec or beware the wrath of the suicider.

But let me add as a final something. Why dont you who are so knowledgeable about null sec and the formation of corporations and alliances go there yourselfs far away from the suiciders and mine to your hearts content? All of the things you have said those bad griefers need to do you should do yourselves.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#843 - 2011-11-09 19:00:22 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
blah blah



So when someone publicly states he doesn't play any more because of you actions (goon perma ganking) adn you publicly answer "mission accomplished" I should rapport you?

Silly roostbeef

What do you think would happen?


Ho very much nothing, was just passing on this forum section to have some fun see you guys posting and make sort you have some reactions, witch you just did.

You're a terrible human being, you should have some lol cats too Lol
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#844 - 2011-11-09 19:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Ok Jojo, let me ask you this.

Lets have a combat pilot, say flying a nice expensive Navy Mega, with really expensive faction guns, filling all his lows with weapon mods, and his mids with prop mods, and his rigs are weapon rigs. No tank.
Then he goes and gets his but kicked by 2 people in t1 cruisers.

If he came here and complained, people would tell him to fit a tank. Then, like you he would say, "Can't fit a tank and get the same dps." And we would call him an entitled little twit.


In the same way, if a hauler or a miner wants to improve survivability, they should sacrifice a little efficiency and fit a little tank. This does work, as proven by the numerous Hulks and other industrials that survive ganks every day.




If the miner has it easy (max yield, afk mining) then the ganker should have it just as easy (pretty much what we have now, though there is room for some improvements). When the miner works to keep himself safe, the ganker does not have it so easy. This is a fact. You may not like it, but that doesn't change that it is a fact.

Tanking does work, as does being aware, as does manual piloting. Proven every day that someone survives a gank*.

Anything you say to the contrary is a bold faced LIE (see I can bold it too).



*Note, as with anything in EVE, no method of defense in space will keep you safe 100%. As with everything else it is up to you to take the measures needed to improve your chances.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#845 - 2011-11-09 19:02:39 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.

There is nowhere in the game where it takes Concord 20s to arrive on the scene of a gank. Beyond that, if the miner in the procurer or retriever was at his keyboard and aligned to a warp out point he could have avoided getting shot altogether. The biggest realization I've come to during our ice interdiction is that miners actually feel entitled to be afk while they are gathering resources and take great offense to being told that they never have to lose their ship if they are actually playing the game.


I honestly don't know concord's response time. I assumed it was 20-30s in 0.5-0.6 systems. If its always under 20 seconds, then losing an exhumer requires stubbornness and/or ignorance, because they can fit decent tanks while still output a decent load.

Quick fit, tanked barges without using faction, gang boosts, implants, etc:
Barges: 5.5, 7, & 13k
Exhumers: 19, 21, & 29k.

My guestimated DPS from gank-fit ship: catalyst 300-400, Thorax 500-750, brutix 750-1000.

Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!!
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#846 - 2011-11-09 19:05:09 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
You're a terrible human being, you should have some lol cats too Lol

I think you have me confused for somebody from 4chan.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#847 - 2011-11-09 19:12:48 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

First.... Mad props to Tippia for having the endurance, patience, and maturity to really depict the benefits of suicide ganking and rally against the armistice of hi-sec.

I understand miners feel victimized because some people learned how to make a profit from ganking their ships. Insurance plays a significant role in the profit margin on ganking any mining vessel larger than a retriever, and this change will significantly reduce those profits. However, the insurance changes are helping the WRONG element of Mining Society.

The dessie changes make it easier than ever to destroy a procurer or retriever. Even with the insurance changes, if one strip miner falls the dessie pilot makes a profit. I've tried to max tank these vessels, and there's no sane fit that can survive 20s of catalyst fire. These represent the new pilots that could use a boon, and deserve a little protection. Alas, they are SOL.

On the flip side, the insurance changes move the costs of a hulk-ganking brutix roughly from 6-10m to 25-30m. The truth is, hulk pilots not only represent the more advance players that should NOT need to be coddled, but they ALREADY HAVE OPTIONS to avoid their losses. Unlike a procurer pilot that can't really tank their ship, a hulk pilot can easily fit a mod strip miner II hulk or an ice harvester II hulk with 29k EHP (and thats without faction mods, gang bonuses, implants, logistics help, etc). This is more than enough buffer to survive a single brutix attack.

Essentially, this change is helping the wrong portion of miner society.

If you shitfit your ship for missions, it gets blown up. Contrarily, if you fit it appropriately, you'll be able to survive.
If you shitfit your hulk while mining, let it get blown up too, and if the fit it appropriately, they don't have much to worry about!



The whole high sec mechanics are helping the wrong pvp crowd more than every other high sec activity and that's a fact.

At this point you should be in low/null making your own place, but you don't, because you're just incapable of.
You're uber pvp guys against defenceless players and just has those you like the relative security of high sec while by just creating a player corporation this should mean you have some balls to go fight in null/low, you just don't once again.

You, your corporation, and all of those high sec grieffers are a real plague for this game community development.
The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.

You just don't want to follow rules of big alliances, but you want rules to protect you and you sure don't want mechanics to protect high sec miners or whatever from you. You are a terrible human being Lol



First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking, we gank in Null!! Your baseless accusations are a perfect example of the ignorance that's emanating throughout this thread:

1.) If you are in hisec you are not SAFE.
2.) You have options to protect yourself, use them or lose your ship.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#848 - 2011-11-09 20:29:39 UTC
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.



I hope they don't do this. Suicide ganking needs a boost not a nerf.

Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#849 - 2011-11-09 20:34:00 UTC
Crias Taylor wrote:
If we are going to argue about what "makes sense" in a cold universe why would an insurance company also insure your loses to the people you declared war against?

The fact is this was shoved in to "appease" high sec miners and mission runners. Mission runners who make more isk then those in nullsec while being under the protection of concord. CCP soundwave promised a buff to nulls anoms in value so maybe this will help offset yet another buff to empire. I doubt it though.



This is not a buff to empire its a nerf. It makes empire even more boring and uneventful.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
K Suri
Doomheim
#850 - 2011-11-09 20:40:24 UTC  |  Edited by: K Suri
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!!

Didn't you just say you're a null alliance with a no highsec gank rule?

So what's it to ya?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#851 - 2011-11-09 20:45:13 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Tanking does work, as does being aware, as does manual piloting. Proven every day that someone survives a gank*.


The only thing proven when someone survives a gank is that somebody got too ballsy and forgot to scan.

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
#852 - 2011-11-09 20:47:25 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:

The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.


It's not and never was, but keep thinking that.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Richard Aiel
The Merchants of War
#853 - 2011-11-09 21:03:16 UTC
Andski wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:

The normal progression should always be, high sec, low sec, null sec.


It's not and never was, but keep thinking that.


Hate to agree with a Goon but there IS NO progression in this game, and nor should there be IF the game is the sandbox ppl pretend it is.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/SOA-3-2.jpg
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#854 - 2011-11-09 21:37:24 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking,

I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#855 - 2011-11-09 21:39:02 UTC
Cearain wrote:

Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.


The removal of insurance for ships lost to CONCORD?

The simplest explanation lies at the feet of those new glass cannon, tier 3, battlecruisers that are being introduced. Which will be able to alpha like a battleship, while costing a good bit less. It probably would have resulted in freighters getting ganked for carrying as little as 500-700M ISK worth of goods (instead of the customary 1B ISK number).

Remove of insurance paid out to CONCORD losses restores that balance (mostly... everyone will have to run math once the stats get finalized).
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#856 - 2011-11-09 21:42:07 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.

Goons. Goons ruin everything.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#857 - 2011-11-09 21:43:59 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.

Goons. Goons ruin everything.


Not yet. But we're working on it.Big smile


BTW, it got pushed through because CEO Hello Kitty doesn't have a clue about what game he actually runs anymore. He sees 5000 ice miners crying and reacts, not realizing that 4999 of them hate the game so much they can't be bothered to actually play it.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#858 - 2011-11-09 21:46:26 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
If you carebears think that loss of insurance payouts is gonna stop ppl from ganking your ****, you are sorely mistaken.

The only 'profit' I seek is your corpse, and your tears.

Now that being said, I could see this making freighter ganks, or any ganks requiring a battleship less frequent, but when a hulk gank only costs me 5 mil in thrashers it's still worth it.


Not really. The new T3s will usher in a bold new era of ganking freighters. Hell, we should blockade 1 hop out of Jita, any time we see a Freighter, pop it with our shiny new T3s. We'd make enough money to pay for the ships.

This changes nothing but the perception of CEO Hello Kitty as being even more out of touch with his own game.

Oh, and it might get some idiotic pubbies to try ice mining again. That should be cute, especially once the T3s come out and we can gank Orcas without much effort.
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#859 - 2011-11-09 22:18:37 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking,

I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.


Easier than figuring it out and picking a playstyle for themselves I suppose.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#860 - 2011-11-09 22:26:45 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
First off, my corp/alliance lives in null sec, and has for as long as I've played EvE. Additionally, we have a strict ROE that prohibits Hi-sec ganking,

I will never understand why people join corps and alliances that tell tell them how to play the game.


Agony Unleashed sets guidelines on its members in order to maintain a positive reputation within the greater community. Given a large portion of our PR centers round our PvP U. classes, we discourage scamming, pirating, and griefing. It helps define our corp culture, something that is moderately unique and quite enjoyable to be apart of. This has similarities to the Goons, which certainly comes with a unique and enjoyable corp culture, centered around its well-known reputation.

K Suri wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Why do we need an insurance change?? This makes no sense, as the options to protect their own assets are already available!!!!!

Didn't you just say you're a null alliance with a no highsec gank rule?

So what's it to ya?


Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. This unbalances "safe" hisec activities, and generally hurts the growth of nullsec. Additionally, I feel these changes are unhealthy, basically encouraging the notion that players innately deserve to fit and operate their ships throughout hisec, however they want, without interference from others. I feel that this viewpoint is grossly incorrect, and in a healthy sandbox, people can fit and operate however they want, but must be weary of interference from others.

Essentially, the tools already exist for miners and haulers to prevent their ship losses. Its ignorance and/or stubbornness to hi-sec threats that result in the majority of these losses, and rather than educate this branch of the community, CCP is capitulating to their whines.