These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The broken mechanics of -10 gankers able to act with zero consequences.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#21 - 2013-09-01 21:11:41 UTC
Do people really not understand this? Geez, read and learn: Security Status
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#22 - 2013-09-03 03:52:59 UTC
Andski wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Pressing on CCP to change the rules is also a way to PvP. Blink

"please remove suicide ganking CCP, nobody told me this game was challenging in any way"

Sounds good.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-09-08 18:07:04 UTC
IMO anytime a -5 or below can fly around highsec in a ship and not get killed is a broken mechanic. (and yes they are in fact not getting killed when they can warp from stations/gates in anything other than a near instawarp ship) -10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status, and if you can survive long enough to suicide gank then you are surviving way too long already if you're already -10
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-09-08 20:00:48 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
IMO anytime a -5 or below can fly around highsec in a ship and not get killed is a broken mechanic. (and yes they are in fact not getting killed when they can warp from stations/gates in anything other than a near instawarp ship) -10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status, and if you can survive long enough to suicide gank then you are surviving way too long already if you're already -10


So shoot them instead of whining.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-09-08 21:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Flames
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
IMO anytime a -5 or below can fly around highsec in a ship and not get killed is a broken mechanic. (and yes they are in fact not getting killed when they can warp from stations/gates in anything other than a near instawarp ship) -10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status, and if you can survive long enough to suicide gank then you are surviving way too long already if you're already -10


So shoot them instead of whining.

funny i seem to be missing where I whined at. And it aint my job to go around doing concord's job.

edit: There also seems to be this issue with people constantly complaining about people "whining" about stuff when in reality they are just voicing their opinion, not actually whining. Here is a link for you folks so you have at least been told the actual definition of the word whine http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whine
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2013-09-09 07:14:39 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Elizabeth Aideron wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
IMO anytime a -5 or below can fly around highsec in a ship and not get killed is a broken mechanic. (and yes they are in fact not getting killed when they can warp from stations/gates in anything other than a near instawarp ship) -10 has always been a can't survive in highsec status, and if you can survive long enough to suicide gank then you are surviving way too long already if you're already -10


So shoot them instead of whining.

funny i seem to be missing where I whined at. And it aint my job to go around doing concord's job.

edit: There also seems to be this issue with people constantly complaining about people "whining" about stuff when in reality they are just voicing their opinion, not actually whining. Here is a link for you folks so you have at least been told the actual definition of the word whine http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whine

It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?
Cade Windstalker
#27 - 2013-09-09 07:21:12 UTC
Doris Dents wrote:
It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?


Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#28 - 2013-09-09 09:44:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Doris Dents wrote:
It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?


Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...


Got a source for your disbelief?

Nevertheless my recollection matches Cade's. IIRC the numbers were mentioned a few months ago. My impression from CCP is that they think they might have over-nerfed suicide ganking.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-09-09 13:00:47 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Doris Dents wrote:
It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?


Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...

http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/8089066/csm-ccp-meetings-december-2012

Page 104:

"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-09-09 13:05:04 UTC
Cause exhumers are the only measure of suicide ganks right?
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-09-09 13:21:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Doris Dents wrote:
It has never been Concords job to preemptively defend those that choose not to defend themselves. Suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground and is at historically low levels according to CCP but still bears demand more nerfs. When exactly will you be satisfied?


Got a source for "at historically low levels"? Because I don't quite think I believe that...


Got a source for your disbelief?

Nevertheless my recollection matches Cade's. IIRC the numbers were mentioned a few months ago. My impression from CCP is that they think they might have over-nerfed suicide ganking.

ohhhh looky here a source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

1st graph has ship value destroyed in pvp going up in high
3rd graph has chars recieving sec status penalties going up in high

hmmmm that seems to tell me that suicide gankings are going up, what does it tell you? how exactly is suicide ganking "nerfed into the ground" when it's on the rise?

In regards to Doris, indy ships when fitted to haul are simply not defendable against someone who wants to suicide gank them, which btw I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is those who are supposed to not be able to operate in highsec very well operating in highsec pretty darn well afterall. THAT is a broken mechanic, people who are below -5 should not be able to go around suicide ganking in high like it's nothing.
Doris Dents
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-09-09 13:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Doris Dents
That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-09-09 17:24:02 UTC
Doris Dents wrote:
That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.

That's about a 25-50% increase in sec status hits on the highsec line starting in Dec of 2012, it seems flat only because it's being compared to the much higher low sec sec status hit line. also http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3288 has stats for 2008-2011. It's hard to directly compare the 2 because the 1st graph (9-2012 to 4-2013) has alot of slopes instead of exact data points like the 2nd one (2008-2011) does but it does seem at the least to be very similar in numbers, certainly enough to prove that suicide ganks have by no means gone down very much if they even went down.
Cade Windstalker
#34 - 2013-09-09 23:52:28 UTC
Doris Dents wrote:
http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/8089066/csm-ccp-meetings-december-2012

Page 104:

"For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."


That could be for a number of reasons though. For a start that was post-mining rebalance.

Plus as someone else pointed out that's only a single ship class (and not even all mining ships, just exhumers) and not a good measure of overall suicide ganking.

Omega Flames wrote:
ohhhh looky here a source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

1st graph has ship value destroyed in pvp going up in high
3rd graph has chars recieving sec status penalties going up in high

hmmmm that seems to tell me that suicide gankings are going up, what does it tell you? how exactly is suicide ganking "nerfed into the ground" when it's on the rise?

In regards to Doris, indy ships when fitted to haul are simply not defendable against someone who wants to suicide gank them, which btw I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is those who are supposed to not be able to operate in highsec very well operating in highsec pretty darn well afterall. THAT is a broken mechanic, people who are below -5 should not be able to go around suicide ganking in high like it's nothing.


Also not necessarily a good measure of suicide ganking since it covers all PvP kills, not just suicide ganks. The spike could be due to the tag changes but it could also be a result of high sec wars or any number of other things.

Plus overall the PvP kills for the three regions are increasing together with Low-Sec showing the greatest deviation at the time of the tag changes.

Doris Dents wrote:
That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.


They also introduced the Attack Battlecruisers though, which were a major buff to suicide ganking in general, especially against large targets like Freighters. Overall after the Cruicible changes the isk/EHP gank value of a Freighter actually went down, not up even taking into account the insurance changes and you need fewer people to gank a Freighter cost effectively.

Omega Flames wrote:
That's about a 25-50% increase in sec status hits on the highsec line starting in Dec of 2012, it seems flat only because it's being compared to the much higher low sec sec status hit line. also http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3288 has stats for 2008-2011. It's hard to directly compare the 2 because the 1st graph (9-2012 to 4-2013) has alot of slopes instead of exact data points like the 2nd one (2008-2011) does but it does seem at the least to be very similar in numbers, certainly enough to prove that suicide ganks have by no means gone down very much if they even went down.


Plus as the graphs in the linked dev-blog show suicide ganking actually went up with Cruicible.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-09-09 23:57:26 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
ohhhh looky here a source
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

1st graph has ship value destroyed in pvp going up in high
3rd graph has chars recieving sec status penalties going up in high

hmmmm that seems to tell me that suicide gankings are going up, what does it tell you? how exactly is suicide ganking "nerfed into the ground" when it's on the rise?

In regards to Doris, indy ships when fitted to haul are simply not defendable against someone who wants to suicide gank them, which btw I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is those who are supposed to not be able to operate in highsec very well operating in highsec pretty darn well afterall. THAT is a broken mechanic, people who are below -5 should not be able to go around suicide ganking in high like it's nothing.


Also not necessarily a good measure of suicide ganking since it covers all PvP kills, not just suicide ganks. The spike could be due to the tag changes but it could also be a result of high sec wars or any number of other things.

Plus overall the PvP kills for the three regions are increasing together with Low-Sec showing the greatest deviation at the time of the tag changes.

The 3rd graph is what you need to be looking at, sec status hits in highsec are going to almost purely be suicide ganks.
Cade Windstalker
#36 - 2013-09-10 00:03:28 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

The 3rd graph is what you need to be looking at, sec status hits in highsec are going to almost purely be suicide ganks.


Yes, but while there's definitely an increase it's a fairly small one, especially compared to the low-sec increases, and seems to be trending back downwards there at the end which is significant given the spike in hulls destroyed on the first graph for the same time period.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-09-10 00:22:57 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/wanttotrade-tags-for-security-status/

The 3rd graph is what you need to be looking at, sec status hits in highsec are going to almost purely be suicide ganks.


Yes, but while there's definitely an increase it's a fairly small one, especially compared to the low-sec increases, and seems to be trending back downwards there at the end which is significant given the spike in hulls destroyed on the first graph for the same time period.

It's a 25-50% increase for the highsec sec status hits...that aint small by no means. And you cant compare lowsec and highsec sec status hits when you are talking about suicide ganks since there are no suicide gankings in lowsec :/ 90% or more of all pvp in lowsec generates sec status hits, only suicide ganks generate them in high ergo not comparable.
Cade Windstalker
#38 - 2013-09-10 00:33:56 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
It's a 25-50% increase for the highsec sec status hits...that aint small by no means. And you cant compare lowsec and highsec sec status hits when you are talking about suicide ganks since there are no suicide gankings in lowsec :/ 90% or more of all pvp in lowsec generates sec status hits, only suicide ganks generate them in high ergo not comparable.


Yes, but there was still a large spike in low-sec PvP that resulted in sec-status hits (on average 1000 more characters a day). Plus if you ignore the large spike at the end of March the average increase is more like 20-30%, not 50%. Plus the start of April seems to have dropped back down to the old numbers, though we would have to see more of the graph to determine if this was a sustained drop or simply a small dip.

Overall though, taking this and all the other data into account it's pretty clear that the claim that suicide ganking has dropped isn't supported by the data.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#39 - 2013-09-10 02:28:31 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Doris Dents wrote:
That graph doesn't go back far enough to show the major nerfs to suicide ganking, like Crucible removing insurance for ganks. Even so highsec security hits look pretty flat and very low to me, especially compared to lowsec activity. This against a backdrop of numbers online only growing.


They also introduced the Attack Battlecruisers though, which were a major buff to suicide ganking in general, especially against large targets like Freighters. Overall after the Cruicible changes the isk/EHP gank value of a Freighter actually went down, not up even taking into account the insurance changes and you need fewer people to gank a Freighter cost effectively.


The buff that suicide ganking got with Attack Battlecruisers was dampened by an equal (and greater) amount with the removal of insurance from ganking.
At the time, any loss of a ship with premium insurance would get a pilot most of the hull cost back. It didn't matter how expensive a ship was (I remember people nuking Freighters in Maelstroms, Tempests, and Megathrons)... a ganker would only lose less than 20% of the overall hull cost due to the insurance coverage fee (and remember... at that time, low-end battleships were somewhere in the range of 95 to 120 mil per).

tldr; it was significantly cheaper to suicide gank before Attack Battlecruisers were introduced.

How did you Veterans start?
Oliver Stoned
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2013-09-10 03:00:08 UTC
Let the -10 or lower fly in the systems, the consequences of negative standings imply a consent for fines to use empire gates, docking and a market tax on top of Concord and the local navy after them.
The more negative security status + higher security system = greater fines.

Especially since they can easy fix their security status with tags4sec option.
Concord should pod them.