These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#161 - 2014-06-17 01:19:07 UTC
Vigilant wrote:

If you do consensual crimes in reality with others, do you still pay the same price if caught by the cops (i.e. Concord in EVE)? The answer is --- Yes


Here we go with this reality again. Regardless of what the trailer says, EVE is not real, and you were not there.

Quote:

EVE rides a thin line that no one, even CCP, will not address. How to make all the player base happy with what "want" to do in the sandbox we love to play in. But rarely punishes anyone for actions that can't be easily circumvented (in this case high security ganking).

Unless someone has it out for you specifically, it's generally fairly easy to circumvent ganking, or to secure your property in such a fashion that your loss is almost if not completely mitigated.

Quote:

And with CCP's changes to freighters, they made them even easier to kill. Better off flying a TP now a days and doing many runs, like the old days (before freighters) assuming you like your stuff in your hanger or in one piece.


Freighter pilots kept asking for fittings. CCP gave the people what they wanted, and the balance measures to go with it.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#162 - 2014-06-17 01:20:07 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:

I don't actually care about the people who get ganked. There should be more of them. There should be more gankers, too, and that's my issue. I'm desperately tired of seeing incompetent clowns spewing this crap in all their RP glory when all they ever do is grief the **** out of people with bumping and nonsense while demanding a 'permit.'

Just extort them straight out; or don't. Gank them straight out; or don't. But don't be one of the assclowns that claims to 'own' a part of highsec when the only thing you do about it is bump some people and talk **** in local.

But then we would miss out on all this "local heroes" with his fail/faction-fitted mission ship, who tries to defend "minmatar space" or whatever it says in the upper left corner from the crazy "religious fanatic" who says he owns this system. They are a great source of ISK.

Evil RatKid
Spectral Tiger
#163 - 2014-06-17 01:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Spectral Tiger
Domanique Altares wrote:

Most of them that are actually attempting to avoid PvP manage to do so.





Not seen any figures on that to say either way. Although older characters will have an advantage as they will have more resources and especially more trained skills opening up more possibilities..
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#164 - 2014-06-17 01:21:35 UTC
Spectral Tiger wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:


'because I can' that's bit of a weak argument, and that isn't the real reason as there's always another reason behind that one. I guess it could be farming useless kill mails, but I suspect it's more than just that.


Out of curiosity, if it's a legal action in game, why would "the real reason" matter at all?




It's the intent behind the action that matters not necessarily the action itself. And I have to wonder from what I've read, what that intent is.


That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what my intent is, so long as the in game action is permitted by the game's rules.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#165 - 2014-06-17 01:25:03 UTC
Vigilant wrote:


And with CCP's changes to freighters, they made them even easier to kill. Better off flying a TP now a days and doing many runs, like the old days (before freighters) assuming you like your stuff in your hanger or in one piece.


No they didn't.

They gained 25% more EHP over the Rubicon freighter. Before fittings.
After fittings - if you fit for tank, they have 2x more EHP, up to 4x more EHP if you are talking Jump Freighters.

If you fit for cargo, not only to you gain 25% more cargospace over Rubicon, you only lose 5-15% of your Rubicon EHP.

Freighters were handed a massive buff - the power has been placed in your hands not to fit like an idiot.
If that is too much for you to handle,
I'm sure 90% of the gankers would be ok with returning to Rubicon, as EHP uniformity tends to make the math easier.
Erica Dusette
Division 13
#166 - 2014-06-17 01:25:28 UTC
Vigilant wrote:
Erica Dusette wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Erica Dusette wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Harsh but effective...Your choice to pirate in HIGH has consequences. Risk vs. Reward is achieved!

What about those of us who've never hurt a fly in highsec, but like to shoot first in lowsec. Straight



Same choice was made to pirate Blink I think that is bottom line of what i am saying.

So what you're saying is that because I indulge in consensual PVP with other consensual PVP'ers in low security space I should be banned from areas of HS alltogether?



If you do consensual crimes in reality with others, do you still pay the same price if caught by the cops (i.e. Concord in EVE)? The answer is --- Yes

EVE rides a thin line that no one, even CCP, will not address. How to make all the player base happy with what "want" to do in the sandbox we love to play in. But rarely punishes anyone for actions that can't be easily circumvented (in this case high security ganking).

And with CCP's changes to freighters, they made them even easier to kill. Better off flying a TP now a days and doing many runs, like the old days (before freighters) assuming you like your stuff in your hanger or in one piece.

Instead of realising your idea is full of gaping holes you're gonna instead try to stick by it and attempt to paint a massive canvas with a very small brush.

It's fine if you hate CODE and hate highsec ganking and other such debauchery. That's obviously your driving force for posting, but your drive begins to lose credibility when you're suggesting an idea which would hamper the fun of many, many legit PVP'ers who fall well and truly outside the grounds of why you're posting here in the first place.

So, are you posting against highsec ganking? Or are you posting for tougher sec status penalties/consequences everywhere, for everyone. Because they're two very different things effecting very different groups of people.

Jack Miton > you be nice or you're sleeping on the couch again!

Part-Time Wormhole Pirate ツ Full-Time Supermodel

▷ worмнole dιary + cнaracтer вιoѕ ▷ вσss
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#167 - 2014-06-17 01:27:53 UTC
ITT: Lots of people who have probably never shot at another player in their entire EVE careers.

Bacon makes us stronger
Spectral Tiger
#168 - 2014-06-17 01:28:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:


'because I can' that's bit of a weak argument, and that isn't the real reason as there's always another reason behind that one. I guess it could be farming useless kill mails, but I suspect it's more than just that.


Out of curiosity, if it's a legal action in game, why would "the real reason" matter at all?




It's the intent behind the action that matters not necessarily the action itself. And I have to wonder from what I've read, what that intent is.


That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what my intent is, so long as the in game action is permitted by the game's rules.




So if the actual intent is to grief and they hide it within the game mechanics because the game mechanic allows it. You don't see that as an issue?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#169 - 2014-06-17 01:30:17 UTC
Spectral Tiger wrote:


Players verses dead duck, it's not what I would call PvP although technically it is.


If you're claiming that ganking isn't PvP, then you're basically admitting that haulers and miners don't count as players.

Granted, I believe they count as players in only the loosest sense myself. They're more like scenery than anything else, and lots of games have destructible terrain.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#170 - 2014-06-17 01:32:11 UTC
Spectral Tiger wrote:



So if the actual intent is to grief and they hide it within the game mechanics because the game mechanic allows it. You don't see that as an issue?


What is griefing?

I'm curious what your definition is, because I have never determined that I will 'grief' anyone.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#171 - 2014-06-17 01:32:33 UTC
Spectral Tiger wrote:


So if the actual intent is to grief and they hide it within the game mechanics because the game mechanic allows it. You don't see that as an issue?


I think you can't speak to anyone else's motivations. I also think that enjoying blowing up ships in a videogame does not even come close to counting as "griefing".

So in short, no, that is not an issue.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#172 - 2014-06-17 01:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Carmen Electra
Spectral Tiger wrote:
So if the actual intent is to grief and they hide it within the game mechanics because the game mechanic allows it. You don't see that as an issue?


Nope, PvP is not griefing.

Bacon makes us stronger
Pine Marten
Doomheim
#173 - 2014-06-17 01:37:37 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Noragli wrote:
When you let one group of players mercilessly grief another set, you lose players.

Blowing up a player's spaceship in a game about blowing up spaceships isn't griefing.

QFT
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2014-06-17 01:39:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:


Players verses dead duck, it's not what I would call PvP although technically it is.


If you're claiming that ganking isn't PvP, then you're basically admitting that haulers and miners don't count as players.

Granted, I believe they count as players in only the loosest sense myself. They're more like scenery than anything else, and lots of games have destructible terrain.


Player versus Autopilot is not PvP.

Not that I care if people go around ganking empty freighters on autopilot.

But ganking an autopilot freighter while the owner is over at the neighbors having coffee (or maybe even manning a gatecamp on another PC) does not make the ganker an elite PvP-er either. Regardless of any technical semantic arguments ... it is only genuine PvP if two players are actually at the keyboard.
Candi LeMew
Division 13
#175 - 2014-06-17 01:40:59 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
ITT: Lots of people who have probably never shot at another player in their entire EVE careers.

Yup.

🍌

Remember... in Anoikis Bob Is Always Watching...

"I been kicked out of better homes than this" - Rick James
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#176 - 2014-06-17 01:41:01 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:


Players verses dead duck, it's not what I would call PvP although technically it is.


If you're claiming that ganking isn't PvP, then you're basically admitting that haulers and miners don't count as players.

Granted, I believe they count as players in only the loosest sense myself. They're more like scenery than anything else, and lots of games have destructible terrain.


Player versus Autopilot is not PvP.

Not that I care if people go around ganking empty freighters on autopilot.

But ganking an autopilot freighter while the owner is over at the neighbors having coffee (or maybe even manning a gatecamp on another PC) does not make the ganker an elite PvP-er either. Regardless of any technical semantic arguments ... it is only genuine PvP if two players are actually at the keyboard.


So I think we've solved whether or not autopiloting a freighter can be accurately described as bot aspirancy or not.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#177 - 2014-06-17 01:41:03 UTC
Erica to answer your question:


Both, cause they are related. We love to tote our sandbox, but rarely point out it has many gaping holes in it.

I do believe security status should play much more on your movement and transactions in EVE. Buying stuff is easy to get around, and I understand that. Your movement on your negative 10 pirate that kills for the sake of it should not be able to enter HS at all. Technically as we all know, negative 5 makes you a target of every Concord Cop, shouldn't they pod you? (again harsh I realize).

You want true R vs. R? Then some actions should weigh a bit more heavily.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#178 - 2014-06-17 01:41:52 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
But ganking an autopilot freighter while the owner is over at the neighbors having coffee (or maybe even manning a gatecamp on another PC) does not make the ganker an elite PvP-er either. Regardless of any technical semantic arguments ... it is only genuine PvP if two players are actually at the keyboard.


Are you kidding me. Please say you're kidding me.

Bacon makes us stronger
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#179 - 2014-06-17 01:44:22 UTC
Spectral Tiger wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Why is it suddenly 'beyond the pale' for empty freighters to be ganked?

First, if I was going to lose a freighter - I'd hope it was empty.

Second, do carebears really think there exists some kind of ''unspoken" rule that empty freighters should not be ganked? And if they are ganked - it requires CCP take action?




Empty freighters being ganked.

There's obviously no isk gain for the gank, which means the reasons seem on the face of it just for griefing. Are the relationships between PvE style players and PvP style players really that bad these days?



BZZZ. Thanks for playing.

Griefing is a EULA violation. Thats in EULA.
Ganking is not griefing. That's CCP.

Victims may feel 'griefed', but angry idiots believing something doesn't make it fact.

Thought experiment for you:
There's obviously no ISK in ganking miners either.
Yet miners have been ganked for sport for ages.
And the gankers are mysteriously not banned. (I, or my alts would be banned thousands of times over if this was true)

What does that tell you about your theory that 'ganking without a profit motive = EULA violation'?
Candi LeMew
Division 13
#180 - 2014-06-17 01:44:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Candi LeMew
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Spectral Tiger wrote:


Players verses dead duck, it's not what I would call PvP although technically it is.


If you're claiming that ganking isn't PvP, then you're basically admitting that haulers and miners don't count as players.

Granted, I believe they count as players in only the loosest sense myself. They're more like scenery than anything else, and lots of games have destructible terrain.


Player versus Autopilot is not PvP.

Not that I care if people go around ganking empty freighters on autopilot.

But ganking an autopilot freighter while the owner is over at the neighbors having coffee (or maybe even manning a gatecamp on another PC) does not make the ganker an elite PvP-er either. Regardless of any technical semantic arguments ... it is only genuine PvP if two players are actually at the keyboard.

I think there's merit to both sides of that point.

It's certainly PVP in the essence that it's literally a player-versus-player situation whereby each player involved can take measures and make moves to inluence the result of the encounter. But it also has a very heavy PVE flavor as much of the obstacles faced by the ganker come from the environment it's taking place in and the CONCORD npcs who police it.

🍌

Remember... in Anoikis Bob Is Always Watching...

"I been kicked out of better homes than this" - Rick James