These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Apanake Mission Runners and Gankers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rastaf Arian
Gallente Police Department
#1 - 2014-01-18 05:43:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rastaf Arian
Dear Missioners in Apanake,

I hate gankers with the fiery burning passion of a thousand suns. I have tried to kill them on my main several times with various methods and they are literally untargetable through 98% of their ganks and movement (warp target immunity and dock before warp target immunity wears off). They have literally no risk of losing anything and we missioners cant even retaliate in an effective manner, save one.

Send me 5-10m isk, if each missioner in Apanake does this, I will ensure they all die, quite painfully. If it is enough, I will ensure it happens multiple times, it depends on the cost of the modules i need and the hulls. If you can manufacture and don't wish to contribute isk, I will gladly accept empty battleship hulls (prefer geddons) with no mods or rigs. I will plex out this character and as long as isk comes in, I will make it my mission to destroy them by any means necessary. I only require a regular supply of isk or specific salvage modules.

Edit:
To assuage the minds of those who would think this a scam, I will be posting my expenses and KM's to my bio or here to the forums if they are allowed. Donations will not be made public to protect the player corps and players making them, this char will be trained in a few days.

Edit 2: A short lived dream

I have received no isk so far, thank goodness. I have just learned that you cannot smartbomb undock points, and since the suicide gankers are untargetable (literally, i tested this at ALL points in their movement when they are not warping with a 4 sebod frigate).... it appears there is no way to stop them. CCP: This is unacceptable, if we could fight back it would be OK and I wouldn't mind it so much..... but this is ridiculous.....

I think I will cancel sub soon... im really depressed now :(
Gradzac
Imperial Navy Ladies Auxiliary
#2 - 2014-01-18 06:00:03 UTC
You, Sir, are a scholar and gentleman. I support your noble quest. Please teach the gankers the lesson they deserve.
Paragon Lost
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-01-18 06:03:29 UTC
If only more people where willing to take a stand like you! Those guys are always stealing my salvage and loot!
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-01-18 09:27:03 UTC
Nice 1 Lol
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-01-18 10:15:35 UTC
Rastaf Arian wrote:
This is unacceptable, if we could fight back it would be OK and I wouldn't mind it so much..... but this is ridiculous.


That is just how it works in hisec, your only means of fighting back is concord. If concord don't get the job done before you blow up, there is literally nothing you can do. Suicide ganking is a griefing mechanic, the fun and enjoyment is 100% on the gankers side. He gets to pick the time and place, and there is very little you can do to stop him.

This is just how it is, it was designed that way, and i don't think you should expect things to change anytime soon.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#6 - 2014-01-18 15:26:23 UTC
dexington wrote:
Rastaf Arian wrote:
This is unacceptable, if we could fight back it would be OK and I wouldn't mind it so much..... but this is ridiculous.


That is just how it works in hisec, your only means of fighting back is concord. If concord don't get the job done before you blow up, there is literally nothing you can do. Suicide ganking is a griefing mechanic, the fun and enjoyment is 100% on the gankers side. He gets to pick the time and place, and there is very little you can do to stop him.

This is just how it is, it was designed that way, and i don't think you should expect things to change anytime soon.

Makes me think there might be the solution buried in that thought. CCP needs to halve the reaction time for Concord, since they doubled the access for Ganks (As a career, both tags for sec and destroyer/tier 3 BC class buffs) it is only fair they reduce the time available to Gank, it's called Balance. I think CCP-Fozzie is familiar with the term.

I actually think there might be a reasonable request here,

CCP reduce the reaction time of Concord in all High sec systems by half, this will cause the gankers to spend more ISK to get the job done (if they still want to do it), and allow Missioners and Industrials some more protection without ruining anyone else's game-play.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2014-01-18 15:42:54 UTC
Rastaf Arian wrote:
I think I will cancel sub soon... im really depressed now :(

Can I have your stuff?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-01-18 16:45:17 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
CCP reduce the reaction time of Concord in all High sec systems by half, this will cause the gankers to spend more ISK to get the job done (if they still want to do it), and allow Missioners and Industrials some more protection without ruining anyone else's game-play.


I don't really think there is a problem with response time, the lower the sec status the higher the response time, risk vs. reward.

They could increase the sec penalty when suicide ganking, making it cost more to try.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#9 - 2014-01-18 17:11:34 UTC
dexington wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
CCP reduce the reaction time of Concord in all High sec systems by half, this will cause the gankers to spend more ISK to get the job done (if they still want to do it), and allow Missioners and Industrials some more protection without ruining anyone else's game-play.


I don't really think there is a problem with response time, the lower the sec status the higher the response time, risk vs. reward.

They could increase the sec penalty when suicide ganking, making it cost more to try.

Concord's reaction times haven't changed in forever (Well in a long time) yet we have added new ships, tactics, skills and the inevitable power creep. I would say that a look into Concord's reaction time is well overdue.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Viviseciant
Doomheim
#10 - 2014-01-18 17:22:30 UTC
I think of it like this....1.0-8.0 very nice neighborhoods, expensive homes etc. Response time should be lowered a bit here i think. These are secs where $ lives. $ gets more police protection...fact of rl. 0.7-0.5 middle class so not as quick a response but cops will show up. 0.4-0.0 backwoods. No cops cause they r busy in the high tax areas.

How about this....Fit a cheap t1 bs with smart bombs. Fleet up with a mission runner and sit an 0 in his mission. They drop on him...blooeee.. of course u will then be the ganker and lose insurance as well as your ship but if the guy in the loot pinata agrees to help replace a lost hull it shouldn't be that expensive. Only one mission runner at a time will benefit but any death of gankers gets my full support. Never used smart bombs though so this is basically speculation on my part. Worth a shot.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-01-18 19:18:53 UTC
dexington wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
CCP reduce the reaction time of Concord in all High sec systems by half, this will cause the gankers to spend more ISK to get the job done (if they still want to do it), and allow Missioners and Industrials some more protection without ruining anyone else's game-play.


I don't really think there is a problem with response time, the lower the sec status the higher the response time, risk vs. reward.

They could increase the sec penalty when suicide ganking, making it cost more to try.


The problem is a dozen destroyers can gank a battleship in highsec. Even having a few faction modules makes the gank profitable and due to the gank being so cheap it's nothing just to gank for LOLz.

Increasing sec penalty will not affect many suicide gankers because they're already -10 so after that there is no sec penalty
Qalix
Long Jump.
#12 - 2014-01-18 19:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Qalix
dexington wrote:
your only means of fighting back is concord

Or your buddy/alt could remote rep you.
Or you could fleet with a buddy/alt to receive fleet boosts and warfare link bonuses.
Or you could fit an ECM burst (catalysts have to operate very close to your ship and will be in range of it).
Or you could fit a target spectrum breaker.
Or you could fit ECM (it should be obvious which flavor to use).
Or your buddy/alt could fit ECM.
Or you could use your light drones to kill one of the attackers (they're **** fit; get the total DPS under your total EHP).
Or you AND your buddy/alt could use light drones to kill two of the attackers, guaranteeing their failure.
Or you could use ECM drones.
Or your buddy/alt could use ECM drones.
Or you could use a T3 fit with ECCM to avoid having your mission probed down.
Or you could use an ECCM T3 in conjunction with a Mobile Depot (fit for gate running, refit for mission, refit for gate running)
Or you could use a Mobile Depot carried by a neutral, cloaky alt to refit your bling ship (fit for gate running, refit for mission, refit for gate running)
Or you could put up POSs with fittings in each surrounding system and just travel in a stripped down ship.
Or you could put fittings in a station in each system and just travel in a stripped down ship.
Or you could use scout alts to scout the gates before jumping.
Or you could flag as many known gankers as possible and keep an eye out for them.
Or you could warp to a safe the moment you start seeing the "criminal in system" warnings.
Or you could bait them using a few remote reppers to survive, then use the kill rights as a way to disrupt them from forming up.
Or you could work together with other mission runners to decrease mission run times overall, no need to fit bling and make yourself a target, and turn the situation into a win-win for you.
Or you could reduce your bling factor to avoid being selected as a target.
Or you could go to the OTHER sisters agents.
Or you could take a ship out to losec, rat for tags, and make a living selling the gankers tags and avoid the ganking situation altogether.
Or you could make more ISK joining a nosec corp and running anoms.
Or you could use a buddy/alt in a well-tanked, cloaky Orca that can provide boosts, links, and fitting services (with a small POS and/or depot in the hold, and an ecm "bling hauling" covops in the hangar) to implement several of the above suggestions simultaneously.

Or you could use a combination of some of these. Or something else. I'm sure there are many other methods and means to accomplish similar goals. That doesn't mean that you'll always get away, but they'll have to work for a kill that is worth very little in ISK.
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company
#13 - 2014-01-18 20:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ireland VonVicious
The problem is not response times or anything of that nature.

Ganks have always existed.

The large weapon battle cruisers I see no issue with. Risk / Reward and all that exist.

Destroyers are the issue. They were fine with the -25% firing speed they once had.
That nerf on them needed to be removed but it made this gank situation horrible.

Removing a huge portion of the sec status penalty added to this.

CCP blew it by not making faction destroyers that cost a lot more.
The old destroyers should have had penalty removed and number of weapon slots and targeting times changed to compensate.
The destroyers we have now are powerful enough to be faction destroyers but without the cost and it still didn't help the class much in filling the anti frigate role.

Just another fix that created a problem complements of CCP. FAIL!
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#14 - 2014-01-18 20:42:18 UTC
Ok, my point was half the time to accomplish the gank would require twice as much (If not more) DPS therefore requiring more investment on the aggressors part for the shiny ships they seem to like.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Shaotuk
Sin City Enterprises
#15 - 2014-01-19 05:30:49 UTC
Make it tougher to get sec status back; it's far too easy right now.

Have concord attack pods of characters with low enough sec status.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-01-19 08:36:10 UTC
As I said before, this is the result of Soundwave & Co's master plan.

Anyway, +1 to the OP for the sentiment.

As for the Suicide Gankers, there needs to be more penalty incurred for multiple offenders, something like a 3 strike rule.



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-01-19 16:10:12 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As I said before, this is the result of Soundwave & Co's master plan.

Anyway, +1 to the OP for the sentiment.

As for the Suicide Gankers, there needs to be more penalty incurred for multiple offenders, something like a 3 strike rule.

DMC


A 3 strike rule? Are you talking about sec status penalty because sec status doesn't really hurt full time suicide gankers.
Maxor Swift
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-01-19 19:05:28 UTC
The response time of concord should be linked to your security status the higher the quicker concord respond, seems like the perfect solution .The better citizen you are the more they want to save you and also makes it so low sec gankers dont get saved when they need help lol.

"What you talking about willis"
Dyphorus
Inritus Astrum
#19 - 2014-01-19 21:06:12 UTC
Don't want to end up a snack? Don't run through a pack of wolves with a steak tied to your belt.

You want to go out and run missions in a busy mission hub, in a shiny/pimped ship, when you know the sharks are circling? And you're surprised when you when they come in for an easy meal?

Don't want to be ganked? Run missions in a nice quiet system, in a ship that's appropriate for the task. It's really that easy.
Luci Ambrye
The Service Crew
#20 - 2014-01-19 21:27:16 UTC
Dyphorus wrote:
Don't want to end up a snack? Don't run through a pack of wolves with a steak tied to your belt.

You want to go out and run missions in a busy mission hub, in a shiny/pimped ship, when you know the sharks are circling? And you're surprised when you when they come in for an easy meal?

Don't want to be ganked? Run missions in a nice quiet system, in a ship that's appropriate for the task. It's really that easy.


Then tell CCP to provide more SOE level 4 agents and choke points wouldnt exist.
123Next page