These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP, given that Suicide Gankers will do what they do, how about allowing some retribution?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hauling Hal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2011-11-23 19:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Hauling Hal
Hulk Smasher wrote:
Hauling Hal wrote:
Hulk Smasher wrote:
Most people that suicide gank live in nullsec or at least low sec. If you want revenge you can find me in dek usually. Question is, will you leave the safety of high sec? Cause you never get anything in revenge from me in high sec.


I think you'll find that there is no such thing as suicide ganking in lowsec or nullsec. Goon ice mining kills aside, they usually operate in hisec and gank haulers on their way to Jita, usually in Uedama. When they get a low sec status, they use up 2 more alts and then just close the account and start another one to avoid the recycling alts rule.

You are dumb. You think people pay 40 bucks after a few hits. You will never get revenge on us in high sec though. Feel free to leave high sec where you don't even need kill rights though. 


ROFLMAO. There is no increase in cost. You just dump the old account and start a new one with the PLEX you bought from the loot. You get less ISK spending time trying to farm sec status back up with a 1 month old char that can only just fit 1400s to a BS.

You sound like a part-time, wannabe ganker.
Baaldor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#102 - 2011-11-23 19:21:17 UTC
Sharise Dragonstar wrote:


i dont have a problem with you, you gank on your main and any individual who has kill rights on you can use them to kill you. When you gank someone you are aware of the possible consequences to your main character. If you ever ganked me i would assess any situation where i had the possibility of revenge and if situation was heavily in my favour I would take it. My problem is with alts who gank and all the benefits of the gank goes to their main character who suffers none of the consequences.

My argument for enabling corp members of the victim be able to enact the kill right is just common sense, freinds and allies stick together. If someone was to mug my best mate in RL I would kick the **** out of the person responsible if i ever met them and I am sure a lot of other people would. Similar principles should be allowed in eve.


Yes, EvE is real, and I obviously will end up being jumped by CVA clowns on the 59 south as I go home tonight.
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#103 - 2011-11-24 02:28:37 UTC
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group
#104 - 2011-11-25 22:49:04 UTC
Why do I bother to post this? I don't know.

In an earlier post I suggested that suicide ganking was something that the developers needed to address rather than the indies. Well, it looks like they have.

When I looked through the new feature set, I didn't see a single change that will make things easier for the gankees, but several changes that will make ganking more 'fun' and more profitable.

Thanx a lot CCP. As a group, you suk.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#105 - 2011-11-28 11:41:06 UTC
ACY GTMI wrote:
When I looked through the new feature set, I didn't see a single change that will make things easier for the gankees, but several changes that will make ganking more 'fun' and more profitable.

Such as ..... ?
You're literally the only person complaining about Crucible.
Quote:
Why do I bother to post this? I don't know.

Neither do we.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#106 - 2011-11-28 14:43:33 UTC
I give it 5-7 days after uptime tomorrow before we start seeing the full effects of the new deathgank boats.
If they are as popular with gankers as many expect, then I think CCP will have a problem on their hands.

The effectiveness of the boats have been well documented on the forums by numerous Sisi testers.
What remains to be seen is the willingness and quantity of gankers to use them to create mayhem.
If enough suicide gankers start using them, they could turn the economy upside down, which CCP cannot allow.

If that happens, CCP will either nerf the new BC's and destroyers somewhat, and/or they make a change to the retribution system to dissuade the gankers.

As I have said several times, my proposal is a no-lose situation for gankers.
Either my proposal has no effect on gankers because I have over-estimated the willingness and capabilities of the industrial corps to attack gankers, or the industrial corps DO take advantage of a new mechanic and all the gankers who profess to love PvP so much will suddenly have more coming to them.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#107 - 2011-11-30 12:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
As I have said several times, my proposal is a no-lose situation for gankers.
Either my proposal has no effect on gankers because I have over-estimated the willingness and capabilities of the industrial corps to attack gankers, or the industrial corps DO take advantage of a new mechanic and all the gankers who profess to love PvP so much will suddenly have more coming to them.

The issue, is that it makes it EASIER to gank than ever before. Given your stated reason for wanting such a change is to give retribution to the gankers ... where is your logic?

The only winner in this scenario is the ganker.
The only loser in this scenario is the gankee / gankees corp mates.

There is no reason at all to implement this.

Quote:
If that happens, CCP will either nerf the new BC's and destroyers somewhat, and/or they make a change to the retribution system to dissuade the gankers.

You're forgetting the insurance changes. People will be using cruisers and destroyers more, not BC and BS hulls.

Or they do it for profit, in which case popping your 750mil hauler means I always profit.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Captain Mastiff
#108 - 2011-11-30 13:38:33 UTC
9/10 kill rights are useless, and 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I honestly have never used my "kill rights" because it's usually been a -10 player in which I am able to kill or attempt to in any space without repercussions.

The system needs an overhaul in my eyes though I imagine many will disagree.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#109 - 2011-11-30 16:01:53 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The issue, is that it makes it EASIER to gank than ever before. Given your stated reason for wanting such a change is to give retribution to the gankers ... where is your logic?

The only winner in this scenario is the ganker.
The only loser in this scenario is the gankee / gankees corp mates.

There is no reason at all to implement this.


My logic, OK.

I am working off the assumption that suicide gankers underestimate the resolve and skill capabilities of most industrial corps to hunt down a ganker within 30 days. The industrial char skill set of course is no match for a ganker, and never should be.
I don't believe the propaganda spread by suicide gankers that industrial corps don't have combat pilots, and this proposal would not be taken advantage of by industrial corps.

And so what if I am wrong? I could be, easily. What happens then? Nothing changes. Industrial corps don't take advantage of corp wide kill rights, and the gankers continue business as usual, with no ill-effects to them.

But with my proposal, the industrial corps have that option to try to kill the ganker on the industrial corp's terms.
And given that suicide gankers are known universally as the best PvP'ers in the game, they should just chuckle, polish their guns, and say "bring it on".

Unless, of course, the suicide ganker's reputation for bloodlust and PvP skills is overstated????
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group
#110 - 2011-11-30 16:06:59 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
ACY GTMI wrote:
When I looked through the new feature set, I didn't see a single change that will make things easier for the gankees, but several changes that will make ganking more 'fun' and more profitable.

Such as ..... ?
You're literally the only person complaining about Crucible.


You need to read the pre-release propaganda again. If you still can't figure it out, it's not my fault.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#111 - 2011-11-30 16:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am working off the assumption that suicide gankers underestimate the resolve and skill capabilities of most industrial corps to hunt down a ganker within 30 days

This is a silly assumption. Given they can ALREADY do this and they aren't. What makes you think your change will do anything to help?
Again, as stated, your corp mates can ALREADY give you neut RR so that you can solo the ******. They don't need to shoot.
Quote:
I don't believe the propaganda spread by suicide gankers that industrial corps don't have combat pilots, and this proposal would not be taken advantage of by industrial corps.

It's not "propaganda" it's a simple fact. They sit on this very forum whining and whining and whining about "one man wardecs" ruining their gameplay and "greifing" them. How, exactly, does a single character "harass" an industrial corp unless they are terribly poor at PVP?
Quote:
And so what if I am wrong? I could be, easily. What happens then?

Except when I stick an alt in your corp, and farm killrights on myself. I then set a trap and convince you / your other mates to come try to kill myself. Then I have several idiots who aggro themselves to me who I can shoot. See how it works?
The current situation puts ALL THE ADVANTAGES OF SETUP AND INITIATIVE IN YOUR HANDS.

The simple fact you're making this thread and complaining you can't, is the evidence I need to know you're better off without another aggro mechanic you don't understand.

EVEN IF corps would band together and do this, all that would happen is gankers would be even more inclined to use alts / characters never in highsec anyway to do it. So you make it even HARDER to get meaningful retribution.

Quote:
You need to read the pre-release propaganda again. If you still can't figure it out, it's not my fault.

You figured wrong.

No one is surprised.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

ShipToaster
#112 - 2011-11-30 17:26:42 UTC
Patch Notes wrote:
Insurance is no longer paid out for players who are killed by CONCORD.


Does this mean that if players are killed by other players before CONCORD can do so that the insurance is still paid out?

Asked this in the wardec thread but no replies so does anyone know the answer to this?

.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#113 - 2011-11-30 17:38:09 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Many points slamming my proposal


Just one question:

If you are a ganker, and love PvP so much, why are you ridiculing a proposal that will get you MORE of what you want?


CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#114 - 2011-11-30 18:27:08 UTC
Moved from General Discussion.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#115 - 2011-11-30 22:02:50 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Many points slamming my proposal


Just one question:

If you are a ganker, and love PvP so much, why are you ridiculing a proposal that will get you MORE of what you want?


I'm ridiculing your OP, which suggests it is something to HELP the victim.

If you want to edit the OP to say "gankers should have more victims, please" then please, go ahead if that is what you mean.

What you actually mean, however, is you STILL think this will help indy corps and you're trying to leverage points as to why it won't in your favour.

Bluntly, you neither understand or WANT to understand the mechanics involved (you admitted as much) so any suggestion you put forth has to be seen in that light. i.e. one of ignorance to the facts.

Counterpoint: if it achieves nothing, why should CCP waste time to code it in?
Counterpoint2: If, like it has been suggested, it achieves MORE victims, what is your proposal going forward? Patch in more changes to deal with the changes? That wouldn't have been necessary had CCP not listened to someone who knows **** all?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#116 - 2011-11-30 22:04:41 UTC
ShipToaster wrote:
Patch Notes wrote:
Insurance is no longer paid out for players who are killed by CONCORD.


Does this mean that if players are killed by other players before CONCORD can do so that the insurance is still paid out?

Asked this in the wardec thread but no replies so does anyone know the answer to this?


If you self destruct OR get a buddy to **** your face off before you die, you get your insurance payment.

The "flag" for not getting the payment seems to be "CONCORD on the lossmail" and not "player had an active GCC in highsec"

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#117 - 2011-12-01 00:11:29 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Many points slamming my proposal


Just one question:

If you are a ganker, and love PvP so much, why are you ridiculing a proposal that will get you MORE of what you want?


I'm ridiculing your OP, which suggests it is something to HELP the victim.

If you want to edit the OP to say "gankers should have more victims, please" then please, go ahead if that is what you mean.

What you actually mean, however, is you STILL think this will help indy corps and you're trying to leverage points as to why it won't in your favour.

Bluntly, you neither understand or WANT to understand the mechanics involved (you admitted as much) so any suggestion you put forth has to be seen in that light. i.e. one of ignorance to the facts.

Counterpoint: if it achieves nothing, why should CCP waste time to code it in?
Counterpoint2: If, like it has been suggested, it achieves MORE victims, what is your proposal going forward? Patch in more changes to deal with the changes? That wouldn't have been necessary had CCP not listened to someone who knows **** all?



Sorry, your arguments don't fly.

If you were management, and I was labour, and we were negotiating a new labour deal, would you tell me "no, we can't add that to the agreement since it is bad for labour and good for me."
I think not.

The only logical reason I see you ridiculing this is because it would be BAD for gankers, and therefore it is in the best interests of gankers to try to shut down any proposal that might have the slightest chance of giving industrial victms a fighting chance.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#118 - 2011-12-01 09:49:41 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry, your arguments don't fly.

Yes, they do. Try to counter any of them. Go.
Quote:
If you were management, and I was labour, and we were negotiating a new labour deal, would you tell me "no, we can't add that to the agreement since it is bad for labour and good for me."

Except this happens every day in real life. For example: overtime regulations. Safety regulations. Every employment regulation one can think of.
"BOSS!! Don't hire a sodding contractor, lol!! I can fix that with a hammer!!"
"Erm....I can't let you do that"
Try another meaningless analogy.
Quote:
The only logical reason I see you ridiculing this is because it would be BAD for gankers

Try to remove instances of petitio principii from your argument and try again.
Or, to put it in simple terms, provide some evidence for the assumptions in your question.
Quote:
therefore it is in the best interests of gankers to try to shut down any proposal that might have the slightest chance of giving industrial victms a fighting chance

For me to listen further, please explain how the following tools and options are unfit for purpose. Your purpose here, to be clear, is revenge on one perpetrator.
1) Locator agents / contacts list / alt scouts. Using these three, you can locate the perp and ensure you are always in a position to be the surprise aggressor in any conflict.
2) A ship that can neut / apply DPS. Hint: even with NO skills trained, you can achieve such a ship / skills within one week.
3) Friends
4) Remote repair modules
5) The propulsion jamming skillbook.

Given that a Catalyst can now do >500dps, there is absolutely no excuse for your failure.

There are too possible states, here:
1) The victim is already able to take revenge under the current mechanics
2) The victim is unable to take revenge under the current mechanics

Given that I can prove 2) to be untrue, that leaves you with two possible states:

1) The victim is already able to take revenge under the current mechanics / has the will to do so
2) The victim is already able to take revenge under the current mechanics / has not the will to do so

Changing the mechanics, therefore, will not change the number of victims taking revenge.

Your failings aside, you're forgetting the important part here. With each gank, there is one victim. It makes complete sense, therefore, that there is one person able to directly take retribution.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#119 - 2011-12-01 15:24:00 UTC
[quote=Khanh'rhh
More odd comments since this would supposedly improve his position as a ganker[/quote]

I have told another other person in this thread, their opinion does not matter, only CCP's.
I won't waste more time arguing with you.

The current system does not work, and this is a proposal to fix it.
CCP may look at it (strongly doubt it given how many threads in here don't have any CCP responses), or they won't.

Nothing I or you say will alter CCP's decision to examine the possibility.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#120 - 2011-12-01 21:17:22 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The current system does not work, and this is a proposal to fix it

I have shown you over and over again how
a) It does work
b) Your change can only harm the victims more

You have failed to counter any point made, except to pile on ludicrous logical fallacies and try to make them fly as "evidence."

As it stands, any CCP employee reading your post is going to think "idiot" - unless you can come up with reasons HOW it will help, and who it will help.

At the moment, this proposition is basically:

"CCP, please spend time developing and testing an entirely new aggression mechanic for highsec ganking. It is needed to help retribution! It might also help gankers gank even more. Either change is acceptable"

Given the above, the only logical conclusion is not to act.

Again, try to form a reasoned argument and avoid paraphrasing my op. You can't say "something will happen" and claim this is something that needs to go in, based on whatever convenient argument pops up.

You *need* to address:
1) Why gank victims are not already looking for retribution.
2) Why gank victims are not already levering corp mates for help
3)Why adding a mechanic that has a huge potential to backfire will change the underlying issue; the gankee is unwilling to do what is necessary to get retribution.

If your *actual* defense of your proposal is that MORE players will be getting ganked and MORE gankers will be using this to bait carebears into aggressing them, how does this help? Who does this help? Do you think it is acceptable to put in a game mechanic labelled to help indy corps, which will be used against them instead?

You have to challenge my argument in a better manner than "oh well he would say that" for it to hold any water.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,