These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-09-10 03:02:29 UTC
Attack bc's made it easier to gank freighters and bs's. Indy's and exhumers are already gankable easily enough with destroyers. You are very correct that it's more expensive to gank...but the current evidence says ganking is on the rise not fall. You must understand it's not just for profit that people gank it's also to increase their kb stats and for the lol's (hulkageddon, ice interdiction, and the permageddon that arose out of the ice interdiction's ashes...about the only successful part of the ice interdiction). Going around ganking expensive ships is normally a pure win for your kb because the loss to concord will only show up ONLY if the ganked person had drones out, and let's face it when viewing kb stats no one really digs very deep into the kills to see that they are suicide ganks and if the person was even breaking even on the ganks esp if the ganks are more than 5-10 kills deep in the list.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-09-10 03:09:18 UTC
Oliver Stoned wrote:
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.

fines dont really work thou. the -10 might become stuck in high cause he doesnt have the isk to pay to get to lowsec and would be a very imbalanced approach. And yes fixing sec status has always been super easy. But with -10's able to continue suicide ganking with such little restriction they DONT NEED to fix sec status.
Cade Windstalker
#43 - 2013-09-10 03:40:15 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
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.


The Maelstrom was actually around 150mil back then and for Alpha was the only hull comparable to the Tornado. The Megathron was around 120 but has never quite been equal to a Tornado/Maelstrom for a .5 sec system gank where you can get two good volleys off from 1400s.

Also remember that when they were introduced the Tornado ran about 60mil per hull, putting their total cost at only double the insurance payout for a Maelstrom at the time.

Overall the Attack Battlecruisers lowered the SP and initial ISK investment required to suicide gank and while they may not have completely canceled out the insurance changes for large targets they made it easier to get groups of people together for ganking large targets and lowered the investment required for a gank.
Yi-Ming Gren
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2013-09-16 02:02:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Yi-Ming Gren
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.



That sounds great, when are we getting a buff?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#45 - 2013-09-16 02:19:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also remember that when they were introduced the Tornado ran about 60mil per hull, putting their total cost at only double the insurance payout for a Maelstrom at the time.

Pre-insurance nerf you'd literally get back your money afterward, successful gank or not. Remember, the insurance system at the time was also borked in that it gave almost equal mineral value or more for the ship lost (because insurance rates were fixed and not dynamic at that time). People were building ships, insuring them, and then self-destructing them for a profit.

So while initial costs for ganking with battleships was higher before Attack Battlecruisers came into being... the net loss was significantly less.
Today, a suicide ganker's ships is considered a total loss.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Overall the Attack Battlecruisers lowered the SP and initial ISK investment required to suicide gank and while they may not have completely canceled out the insurance changes for large targets they made it easier to get groups of people together for ganking large targets and lowered the investment required for a gank.

Not quite.

Certainly, the skill Battlecruiser requires a bit less time to train into compared to Battleships (like, 5 days less overall)... but Attack Battlecruisers and Battleships both use large turrets and the skills required to support them.

How did you Veterans start?
Cade Windstalker
#46 - 2013-09-16 04:51:42 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also remember that when they were introduced the Tornado ran about 60mil per hull, putting their total cost at only double the insurance payout for a Maelstrom at the time.

Pre-insurance nerf you'd literally get back your money afterward, successful gank or not. Remember, the insurance system at the time was also borked in that it gave almost equal mineral value or more for the ship lost (because insurance rates were fixed and not dynamic at that time). People were building ships, insuring them, and then self-destructing them for a profit.

So while initial costs for ganking with battleships was higher before Attack Battlecruisers came into being... the net loss was significantly less.
Today, a suicide ganker's ships is considered a total loss.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Overall the Attack Battlecruisers lowered the SP and initial ISK investment required to suicide gank and while they may not have completely canceled out the insurance changes for large targets they made it easier to get groups of people together for ganking large targets and lowered the investment required for a gank.

Not quite.

Certainly, the skill Battlecruiser requires a bit less time to train into compared to Battleships (like, 5 days less overall)... but Attack Battlecruisers and Battleships both use large turrets and the skills required to support them.


I think you may have your timelines messed up a bit with the insurance changes. I definitely recall people self-destructing ships for a profit (someone blew up something like 500 Rokhs outside Jita) but that was in response to ship insurance suddenly being based on the mineral value of the hull, not fixed insurance rates.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you have to buy insurance, which is lost ISK, even if it may not factor in too heavily in the overall profitability calculation for most people.

Barring a table of old insurance values though I move to cease discussion on this point due to lack of evidence (I hate getting into "he said that she said" arguments)

On the subject of evidence it's pretty clear that suicide ganking hasn't really abated following any of the discussed changes (tags for sec, insurance, ABC introductions, mining changes) from the evidence we have available, though more recent data would certainly be interesting.

It's also pretty clear that the original complaint is filed solidly under "working as intended" at present. If someone wants to start up a discussion on ways hauling/mining mechanics could be changed or improved so that there are other, skill based, ways to avoid or initiate a gank I think that would be a more productive discussion.
Mythrandier
Solace Corp
#47 - 2013-09-16 13:35:38 UTC
Oliver Stoned wrote:
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.



So what you are saying is they should remove the ability for ANYONE to shoot -10s and just have them pay to use gates? I’m sure they would agree to that in a heartbeat.
Unless of course you are suggesting they in fact have 2 sets of consequences, the above mentioned vulnerability to all comers AND the fines?
Or did you just ignore the existing consequences to make your “argument” look better?

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -  D. Adams.
Lady Areola Fappington
#48 - 2013-09-17 04:07:00 UTC
Mythrandier wrote:

So what you are saying is they should remove the ability for ANYONE to shoot -10s and just have them pay to use gates? I’m sure they would agree to that in a heartbeat.
Unless of course you are suggesting they in fact have 2 sets of consequences, the above mentioned vulnerability to all comers AND the fines?
Or did you just ignore the existing consequences to make your “argument” look better?



All penalties associated with (activity I dislike) are simple fippery, waved away with just a thought.
All penalties associated with (activity I like) are insurmountable barriers that prevent access to all but the most truly dedicated.


The -10 argument tends to boil down to alts more than anything. The penalty behind going -10 is easy to mitigate using alts.

You may think that's unfair, but hey...I think it's unfair that miners can mitigate the effects of choosing the mining profession, just by training a hauler alt. The ore is big for a reason. Also, it's unfair if they use a mission runner alt to boost standings for a perfect refine.


As is, the inability to engage in PVE activities, inability to use low agility ships, and KOS status on undock is a pretty huge limitation for a single character. Any worse and you're looking at a functional ban on ganking.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Mythrandier
Solace Corp
#49 - 2013-09-17 07:39:52 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
[quote=Mythrandier]

As is, the inability to engage in PVE activities, inability to use low agility ships, and KOS status on undock is a pretty huge limitation for a single character. Any worse and you're looking at a functional ban on ganking.



Which, fundamentally, is what the guy I quoted is asking for.

Lets just hope CCP continue to ignore his ilk.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -  D. Adams.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#50 - 2013-10-02 14:47:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Callduron
Malcanis wrote:
Dragnkat wrote:


Can someone explain to be how this isn't abusing loopholes in EVE mechanics to get around security status and not an outright exploit?


CCP have repeatedly affirmed that suicide ganking is not just legitimate but intended.

It would be hugely easier to simply disable players from making any "CONCORDable" action than to have the whole flagging/CONCORD system, but CCP don't do this because it's both appropriate and necessary for players in hi-sec to be at risk of non-consensual PvP.

Anyone can shoot a -10 character. CONCORD won't do it because they've already punished him for whatever he did. But they won't interfere if you want to.


The issue isn't suicide ganking.

The issue is that the game appears to have a mechanic to limit the amount of suicide ganking a character can do - sec status loss - but ingenious players have devised workarounds so they can ignore this mechanic. If they have a safed up Orca....

If it's an intended mechanic then it should be available to newer players without alts or extraordinary resources.

If it's an unintended mechanic it should get looked at.

As for "anyone can shoot you" you can have a perfectly competent catalyst pilot with less than 900k skill points. So say he scouts his targets with an alt using a cargo scanner, warps his catalyst pilot in just as they land on the Maddy gate in Niarja and ganks his target. How exactly do we stop that? Are you seriously suggesting that every player needs to have an instacane alt on every highsec gate? Just so they can "punish" the ganker by blowing up his million isk ship and podding his alpha clone?

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2013-10-02 14:49:22 UTC
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2013-10-02 14:51:08 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...



If you're -10 and Red and fly around Hek all day taking fights without using alts or workarounds then you're exactly what this game needs.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-10-02 15:02:59 UTC
Callduron wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...



If you're -10 and Red and fly around Hek all day taking fights without using alts or workarounds then you're exactly what this game needs.

Thanks.

I've read through this thread. Lots of typical crappy posts ignoring the actual reality of what is going on
and why people have issues, but good posts too.

I'll think this through and respond later.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#54 - 2013-10-02 15:25:34 UTC
Please do. It would be good to hear the views of a successful -10 high sec pvper on what's cheesy and what's good skilful gameplay.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-10-02 16:03:20 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...


you're also full of ****. No one is going to continuosly bounce around all day long as you claim. The tediousness of constantly making sure you're in warp so concord doesn't kill you is far too much for anyone to actually do. Which means you are using an alt to find someone to kill just like everyone else.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-10-02 17:29:42 UTC
Omega Flames wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...


you're also full of ****. No one is going to continuosly bounce around all day long as you claim. The tediousness of constantly making sure you're in warp so concord doesn't kill you is far too much for anyone to actually do. Which means you are using an alt to find someone to kill just like everyone else.

Thank you for displaying that you have absolutely no clue about this.

CONCORD doesn't give a rats ass about security status. If you don't believe me,
feel free to come to Hek and get your candy ass kicked. :)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-10-02 18:37:18 UTC
Callduron wrote:
The issue isn't suicide ganking.

The issue is that the game appears to have a mechanic to limit the amount of suicide ganking a character can do - sec status loss - but ingenious players have devised workarounds so they can ignore this mechanic. If they have a safed up Orca....

why would they have an orca when a station will do just fine

also if they board a ship their orca launched while they still have a criminal timer, they'll be instantly pointed by concord and killed a few seconds later
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-10-02 19:20:35 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Omega Flames wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Why punish me, because of how others play as outlaws?

I don't rely on alts and i am in space all day,
bouncing around bookmarks,
for everybody to be seen and shot at.

Not only that, i keep kicking the asses of those who believe i can't fight back,
much to the amusement of the residents of Hek.


Now i'll read the rest of what is probably a huge trainwreck...


you're also full of ****. No one is going to continuosly bounce around all day long as you claim. The tediousness of constantly making sure you're in warp so concord doesn't kill you is far too much for anyone to actually do. Which means you are using an alt to find someone to kill just like everyone else.

Thank you for displaying that you have absolutely no clue about this.

CONCORD doesn't give a rats ass about security status. If you don't believe me,
feel free to come to Hek and get your candy ass kicked. :)

concord...empire police forces...same ******* thing, they both warp to where you're at and kill you if you aren't in warp for too long

@benny...the reason they use orca's iirc is because concord takes up to 30 secs to actually show up so if they simply warp to where ever the next victim is then they get that time to attack someone BEFORE concord arrives.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-10-02 19:22:52 UTC
if you have a criminal flag in highsec, you're pointed and cannot warp, no matter if concord is there or not. this has been the case for a long, long time.
Omega Flames
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-10-02 19:34:52 UTC
then have the orca and gc pilot's in their pods to warp to the victim and then get the ships out of the orca...no warp req'd when in a ship then for the gc'd pilots...either way outlaw pilots shouldn't be able to do all that stuff in highsec.