These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing High Sec suicide ganking by Hull Value - a realistic approach

First post
Author
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#121 - 2013-11-03 00:05:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Freedom Equality wrote:
None of this changes the fact that Suicide Ganking is profitable and risk free, as it takes one successful gank to cover a few failed ones. So even if everything goes wrong no worry, you will get a lot more ISK than you lose next time.

For the victim however.... the loss is a few times bigger, and there is no getting it back.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. It seems you continue to fail to understand basic concept of EvE Online:

Dont fly something you cannot afford to lose.

Victim's loss here is irrelevant. If he invested ISK in his ship/modules - he done so to do missions faster (higher isk/hour): higher risk - more reward. If he is ganked his investments (if they are reasonable) probably payed off multiple times already so he lost nothing.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2013-11-03 00:19:09 UTC
CCP will decide if, for example, it is ok for 10 people to get 100mil worth of ships, kill a 3-4bil very well tanked mission ship and get 1bil worth of profit.

It would not be an issue if this would not be High Sec, where the victim has no idea who is in the system with him and so on.

Suicide ganking should be allowed, but only as a last resort, not as a way to get rich. While i agree some profit should be made, it should be a lot smaller, for example if you use a 10mil ship and risk to only lose 10mil, the maximum amount of profit you should be able to make per gank should be 10mil.

I know you Suicide Gankers will argue, cry for help, try to derail and so on, but it is my opinion and i stand by it.

I am sure CCP will look into the numbers and see who is right, as i am sure i will take some time.

But i believe Suicide Ganking, as it stands now, needs to be changed.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#123 - 2013-11-03 00:35:21 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
CCP will decide if, for example, it is ok for 10 people to get 100mil worth of ships, kill a 3-4bil very well tanked mission ship and get 1bil worth of profit.

It would not be an issue if this would not be High Sec, where the victim has no idea who is in the system with him and so on.

Suicide ganking should be allowed, but only as a last resort, not as a way to get rich. While i agree some profit should be made, it should be a lot smaller, for example if you use a 10mil ship and risk to only lose 10mil, the maximum amount of profit you should be able to make per gank should be 10mil.

I know you Suicide Gankers will argue, cry for help, try to derail and so on, but it is my opinion and i stand by it.

I am sure CCP will look into the numbers and see who is right, as i am sure i will take some time.

But i believe Suicide Ganking, as it stands now, needs to be changed.


If someone puts 10 billion into a shuttle why should I only be able to take 10 million of that?
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2013-11-03 00:42:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
CCP will decide if, for example, it is ok for 10 people to get 100mil worth of ships, kill a 3-4bil very well tanked mission ship and get 1bil worth of profit.

It would not be an issue if this would not be High Sec, where the victim has no idea who is in the system with him and so on.

Suicide ganking should be allowed, but only as a last resort, not as a way to get rich. While i agree some profit should be made, it should be a lot smaller, for example if you use a 10mil ship and risk to only lose 10mil, the maximum amount of profit you should be able to make per gank should be 10mil.

I know you Suicide Gankers will argue, cry for help, try to derail and so on, but it is my opinion and i stand by it.

I am sure CCP will look into the numbers and see who is right, as i am sure i will take some time.

But i believe Suicide Ganking, as it stands now, needs to be changed.


If someone puts 10 billion into a shuttle why should I only be able to take 10 million of that?


If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.

But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....

CCP will change the numbers i`m sure but if somebody gets 10 bil into anything, it should be worth ganking.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#125 - 2013-11-03 00:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Freedom Equality wrote:


If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.

But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....

CCP will change the numbers i`m sure but if somebody gets 10 bil into anything, it should be worth ganking.


If we take the Rhea for example, under you idea it would need to be carrying a cargo+ship worth of 21 billion minimum before it became gank worthy. You honestly don't see how game breakingly bad this is?

You are literally whining about ganking being risk free and then in the very same post you demand haulers get risk free hauling...
Qweasdy
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#126 - 2013-11-03 00:58:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Qweasdy
EDIT: woah wtf... I hit submit and it deleted everything I typed...

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon

Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#127 - 2013-11-03 01:01:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:


If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.

But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....

CCP will change the numbers i`m sure but if somebody gets 10 bil into anything, it should be worth ganking.


If we take the Rhea for example, under you idea it would need to be carrying a cargo of 21 billion minimum before it became gank worthy. You honestly don't see how game breakingly bad this is?

You are literally whining about ganking being risk free and then in the very same post you demand haulers get risk free hauling...


CCP will tweak the numbers.... it would be bad and they can see it as well as you can.

But for a Marauder i think they should be allowed to fit 1b worth of modules and not be profitable to gank it.

For a freighter maybe be able to carry 1.5b worth of loot before profit is in for the gankers and so on.

I also think nobody should be able to Suicide gank a Mining Ship using T2 modules and lose less than the hull value of the mining ship.

Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#128 - 2013-11-03 01:05:24 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:

Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.


The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2013-11-03 01:16:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:

Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.


The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself.


That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)

They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#130 - 2013-11-03 01:20:55 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:

Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.


The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself.


That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)

They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine.


You would rather see the destruction of one of the cornerstones of EVE rather than fit a tank and carry less stuff in one go. Why would CCP change anything when you refuse to use the tools available to protect yourself?

This is why we mock high sec bears, you are utterly useless at this game and forever demand CCP hold your hand and do all the work for you.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#131 - 2013-11-03 01:25:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Freedom Equality wrote:
If you read the proposed system, under it you would take 10bilion minus the (negligible) cost of the shuttle. It would really not matter.

But it will matter when somebody has 1bil in a 1bil hull....

Why should it matter what ship a person is in? A ship is a ship. An expensive hull is is usually better a specific task (reward) but can fall prey to much less expensive ships outside of this task (risk).

A 30 million ISK Stealth Bomber can easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate.
A 100 million ISK Attack Battlecruiser can also easily die to a 1 million ISK frigate.
A 200+ million ISK battleship can die to a small swarm of 1 million ISK frigates.
A 2.2 billion ISK dreadnought can be locked by a 1 million ISK frigate and not be able to defend itself.
A 60 billion ISK Titan can be locked down by a 200 million ISK HIC and not be able to defend itself.

As you can clearly see... hull and module value not having [too much] relevance towards effectiveness is a major theme in EVE.



And without referring to real life (which has no weight in a game)... why should suicide ganking not be be profitable (or very profitable)? Why should people who choose to use more expensive stuff be given preferential treatment?

No one in this game has ANY right to say that what they do should be given more or less protections against others. It's all about what is good for the game as a whole (and unfortunately for you, more ships blowing up is good for the game as it drives demand on the market).

There are many things you can do to protect yourself (not all of them direct)... and there are risks involved in ganking. Why you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them or the metrics supporting our stance is beyond me.
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2013-11-03 01:29:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:

Ganking the above ships should remain a viable option, just not a profitable one.


The whole point of ganking these people is for the profit. CCP are not going to be doing anything as you already have all the tools in game already to defend yourself.


That is the thing, the only way to defend yourself is to play dead.(make yourself an undesirable target)

They will decide but i still think Suicide Ganking should be a last resort not a profit machine.


You would rather see the destruction of one of the cornerstones of EVE rather than fit a tank and carry less stuff in one go. Why would CCP change anything when you refuse to use the tools available to protect yourself?

This is why we mock high sec bears, you are utterly useless at this game and forever demand CCP hold your hand and do all the work for you.


Freighters can`t fit any tank.

As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#133 - 2013-11-03 01:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Freedom Equality wrote:


Freighters can`t fit any tank.



Dont stuff billions into it, use a booster, fit implants, have a fleet escort you.

Freedom Equality wrote:
As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)


My battleships survive getting hit from several hundred other battleships all the time as do tens of thousands of others.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#134 - 2013-11-03 01:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Freedom Equality wrote:
Freighters can`t fit any tank.

Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances.

You can also using the best tank of all: not being there in the first place. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds. I use this method on 4+ billion ISK freighter hauls every week and I have yet to lose the ship.

Freedom Equality wrote:
As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)

The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month?
Freedom Equality
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#135 - 2013-11-03 01:36:12 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Freighters can`t fit any tank.

Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances.

You can also using the best tank of all: not being there. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds.

Freedom Equality wrote:
As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)

The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month?


So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-)

How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#136 - 2013-11-03 01:39:40 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:


So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-)

How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them.


Most BS are not gank worthy. The only ones that ever get ganked are the ones who use very expensive mods they do not need.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-11-03 02:55:04 UTC
Freedom Equality wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Freedom Equality wrote:
Freighters can`t fit any tank.

Yes they can. Warfare links boost resistances.

You can also using the best tank of all: not being there. All you need is a frigate to web your freighter right as it initiates warp. It will be gone in 5 seconds.

Freedom Equality wrote:
As for mission ships, they die no matter what tank they fit as no battleship survives 10 destroyers.(marauders might after the patch tho)

The metrics do not support this assertion. How many battleships and Marauders are running missions every day? How many die to suicide ganks per month?


So it is a non issue because they are not Suicide Ganked fast enough? :-)

How many of the ones ganked survived? Not many as otherwise profit would drop and people would not gank them.

That's what he's saying.

Most ships are not profitable to gank, so they don't get ganked.

Suicide gankers are a very small niche of the community. It's just their victims scream particularly loudly.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#138 - 2013-11-03 05:53:59 UTC
Still waiting for those figures, to show how sucide ganks are not as rare as we think. Showing there is indeed a problem.

Take your time OP, we'll wait.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Allison A'vani
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2013-11-03 06:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Allison A'vani
QQ carebear tears. If you don't want to be ganked in your mining ship, fit a tank, but you wouldn't since you are greedy. Don't afk, be aligned with 0 velocity. Litearlly no excuse to lose one. For freighters... most dont gank freighters unless you are dumb and have 3+ bill in your freighter or you go through the known ganking systems AND you jump without ANY scout. I think it should be easier to gank you bads rather than harder. I can only go into high sec on one of my accounts and that is my JF pilot, I am ALWAYS paying attention every second I am in high sec on that char. High sec is far more dangerous than low or null in a JF. If you afk your freighter then you deserve to lose it imo. Additionally, only retards who have no clue how to fit a ship correctly and ridiculously pimp fit their PvE ships ever are the targets of suicide ganks.


TLDR: QQing Freighter pilots mad they die when they auto pilot, miners mad they die when they don't fit a tank, mission runners mad when they fit a battleship stupidly expensive and look like a free loot pinata. L2 Eve, harden the **** up.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#140 - 2013-11-03 08:39:34 UTC
Allison A'vani wrote:
be aligned with 0 velocity.
Just wanted to point out that at 0 velocity, it makes no difference where your ship is aligned to. You would get into warp at the same time, even if you faced the opposite way.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.