These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1161 - 2014-07-03 04:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Missed this one…
ergherhdfgh wrote:
you don't know which 2-3 they are until they start shooting at you. There are choke points in some cases that can not be avoided without going into low sec which I doubt you are advising freighter pilots to do.

Yes you do. It's the 2–3 ones camping the gate. Because no, contrary to popular (baseless) belief, there are not scores of different groups on every gate. They're a rare breed to begin with, and bunching up in one spot ruins the profitability, don't'cha know.

And yes, there is always a way around them — the most simple of which just involves going straight through three times rather than one.
GM Lelouch
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1162 - 2014-07-03 05:39:08 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
When we ran our caldari ice interdiction we killed about 600 macks in two weeks. Despite having a month of warning not a single one fitted a tank.


that reminds me, earlier in the thread there was talk about 'defensive' concord spawning being an exploit. i said to another poster i'd ask the gamemasters what the policy was, and ask permission to post the answer in the thread




Hello all,

In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I'm going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:


We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance.

To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios:

a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so.

My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to "b" above.

1. Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space.
2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.

Best regards, Lead GM Lelouch CCP Customer Support | EVE Online | DUST 514
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1163 - 2014-07-03 06:18:24 UTC
GM Lelouch wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
When we ran our caldari ice interdiction we killed about 600 macks in two weeks. Despite having a month of warning not a single one fitted a tank.


that reminds me, earlier in the thread there was talk about 'defensive' concord spawning being an exploit. i said to another poster i'd ask the gamemasters what the policy was, and ask permission to post the answer in the thread




Hello all,

In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I'm going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:


We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance.

To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios:

a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so.

My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to "b" above.

1. Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space.
2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.


Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble.
It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.

Prepare for a forum ban.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1164 - 2014-07-03 07:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
GM Lelouch wrote:
2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.

I reported a way to do this that got patched. Never got my PLEX for snitch though. Not that I even knew about that program at the time anyway.

Edit: Oh, nevermind. That was about security vulnerabilities.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Purity by Fire
Purity Tax Haven
#1165 - 2014-07-03 07:02:55 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
GM Lelouch wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
When we ran our caldari ice interdiction we killed about 600 macks in two weeks. Despite having a month of warning not a single one fitted a tank.


that reminds me, earlier in the thread there was talk about 'defensive' concord spawning being an exploit. i said to another poster i'd ask the gamemasters what the policy was, and ask permission to post the answer in the thread




Hello all,

In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I'm going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:


We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance.

To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios:

a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so.

My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to "b" above.

1. Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space.
2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.


Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble.
It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.

Prepare for a forum ban.



Nothing going on here just a GM bending the rules. Move along

So like after 76 petitions I still dont have a logical normal answer.   Fly safe and fly true and use your headset on the Loo
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1166 - 2014-07-03 07:24:29 UTC
Purity by Fire wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


Oh oh...You are going to get into trouble.
It is clearly against posting policies to display discussions with GM's.

Prepare for a forum ban.



Nothing going on here just a GM bending the rules. Move along


And there's a reason he's a GM, and you two aren't.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1167 - 2014-07-03 07:26:52 UTC
You would need a stupidly valuable cargo to bother spawning Concorde using alts on all the gates between Jita and Dodi or Amarr.

Though it might be an interesting thing for a large freight corp to do.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1168 - 2014-07-03 07:42:35 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
You would need a stupidly valuable cargo to bother spawning Concorde using alts on all the gates between Jita and Dodi or Amarr.

Though it might be an interesting thing for a large freight corp to do.
Just Niarja and Madirmilire would suffice, I guess.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1169 - 2014-07-03 08:09:38 UTC
GM Lelouch wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
When we ran our caldari ice interdiction we killed about 600 macks in two weeks. Despite having a month of warning not a single one fitted a tank.


that reminds me, earlier in the thread there was talk about 'defensive' concord spawning being an exploit. i said to another poster i'd ask the gamemasters what the policy was, and ask permission to post the answer in the thread




Hello all,

In order to clear up our current stance concerning this mechanic, I'm going to attach the ticket response I sent to Benny Ohu:


We do not consider intentionally spawning CONCORD using disposable ships an exploit at this time. This is, like all policies, subject to change in the future if deemed necessary for some reason, but we have no current plans to make any changes to this stance.

To put our stance quite clearly, we currently make no distinction between these two scenarios:

a. Suicide gank. CONCORD is spawned because Player A attacks Player B without the rights to do so.
b. Defensive spawning. CONCORD is spawned because Player A's alt character attacks Player A without the rights to do so.

My best guess would be that the confusion stems from different rules having been broken. There are two exploits of sorts which I can think of which could have led to warnings being placed in a scenario similar to "b" above.

1. Alt character recycling. It is considered a violation to recycle alt characters and/or trial accounts to bypass negative consequences. In this case, the consequences being escaped would be the standing hit for performing an unlawful attack in CONCORD protected space.
2. Escaping CONCORD retribution. If a player somehow manages to prevent destruction at the hand of CONCORD after performing an unlawful attack, then it is an exploit. We are currently not aware of any such exploits, but there have been ways to do this in the past which have since been fixed.

Thanks for the clarification. There has definitely been some confusion over this issue.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
karma balancer
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#1170 - 2014-07-03 08:17:43 UTC
And like i have never witnessed a miner spawning concord in the belt they are mining in to try to stop me killing them.

By the way ...EPIC FAILURE

http://i.imgur.com/UFeJSd7.jpg?1

Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#1171 - 2014-07-03 08:21:22 UTC
I tried to remote rep a freighter once as it was being ganked. It was fruitless.

If I see it rise again, I will try and suicide web one. Junk frigate, 3 Webs, I will lose the frigate but the freighter should go in to warp if I time it right.
Varathius
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#1172 - 2014-07-03 09:23:51 UTC
haha, people that think high sec is a ticket to safety always amuse me.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#1173 - 2014-07-03 09:58:03 UTC
Skydell wrote:
I tried to remote rep a freighter once as it was being ganked. It was fruitless.

If I see it rise again, I will try and suicide web one. Junk frigate, 3 Webs, I will lose the frigate but the freighter should go in to warp if I time it right.


Has a hard time working when the freighter has been bumped, because it puts it above its speed cap. Might as well have a HIC infinite-pointing it. There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#1174 - 2014-07-03 10:21:09 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first.


It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1175 - 2014-07-03 11:25:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
And there's a reason he's a GM, and you two aren't.

Because he placed a job application?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1176 - 2014-07-03 11:30:45 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first.


It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space.

Unless you're Han Solo.

Originally, Han shot Greedo first without any reaction. But then GM George Lucas patched it so Greedo at point blank range shot a blaster like any good Storm Trooper and missed with Han reacting and shooting second. But most, if not all fans - including a recent picture of Harrison Ford on the set of the new Star Wars movie holding a hand written sign stating "Han shot first." feel Han Solo was wronged with the GM patch.

So therefore, in a round-about way, Han did "shoot back first" if everyone momentarily ignores the GM patch.

P
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1177 - 2014-07-03 11:45:03 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
There in lays the problem with highsec. You can't shoot back first.


It's grammatically impossible to shoot back first in any type of space.

Unless you're Han Solo.

Originally, Han shot Greedo first without any reaction. But then GM George Lucas patched it so Greedo at point blank range shot a blaster like any good Storm Trooper and missed with Han reacting and shooting second. But most, if not all fans - including a recent picture of Harrison Ford on the set of the new Star Wars movie holding a hand written sign stating "Han shot first." feel Han Solo was wronged with the GM patch.

So therefore, in a round-about way, Han did "shoot back first" if everyone momentarily ignores the GM patch.

P
Or Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1178 - 2014-07-03 12:10:29 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
Unless you're Han Solo.

Originally, Han shot Greedo first without any reaction. But then GM George Lucas patched it so Greedo at point blank range shot a blaster like any good Storm Trooper and missed with Han reacting and shooting second. But most, if not all fans - including a recent picture of Harrison Ford on the set of the new Star Wars movie holding a hand written sign stating "Han shot first." feel Han Solo was wronged with the GM patch.

So therefore, in a round-about way, Han did "shoot back first" if everyone momentarily ignores the GM patch.

P

To be fair, it really shouldn't be about Han shooting first, but about Han shooting, period.
In the original, that was all that happened — there was no first and second shot, just the single one that blew up Greedo while he was mouthing off, which as mentioned is probably a direct lift from Tuco.
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1179 - 2014-07-03 12:22:48 UTC
Noragli wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Noragli wrote:
When you let one group of players mercilessly grief another set, you lose players.

like the carebears who refuse to protect themselves continually demanding that other players' playstyles are nerfed?

Quote:
Simple and obvious fix to a serious problem.

what problem? you haven't established the existence of any 'problem'.


The problem is that -10 characters or other low sec status characters can operate ships and attack people in high security space.

When a character who has aggressed concord undocks or boards a ship, his ship is barred from warping. If concord can do that, then there is no reason the same can't be applied to an outlaw who undocks or boards a ship in high security space. He should be barred from warping or activating weapons.

Ganking will still be possible, but it won't be so ridiculously easy as it is now.



Now you have just trapped a bunch of -10 people in high sec with your carefully thought out 'protect the idiots' suggestion.
Conar
My Wormhole Hurts
#1180 - 2014-07-03 12:48:12 UTC

The 'negative impacts' you describe are there for one reason only: to reduce ganks. From their 'natural' frequency of ALWAYS.

:punishment: has absolutely nothing to do with it!

Repeat the experiment with a competent freighter pilot and some backup.
Highsec losses: zero.
Lowsec losses: I predict at least 5, depending on the backup.
That's what the current highsec mechanics do. Still think it's 'nothing'?


I do agree that the current "punnishment" reduces the number of people who choose this profession or choose to do it to manipulate the supply and demand for freighters.

I personally don't think gankers should be "punished" anymore then what happens currently. They know the risks and rewards of their actions. They see the reward, knowing that there is a 100% chance of ship death and sec status hit. Gankers are smart, they do the math.

But lets be honest, NO Freighter is safe no matter what mods you put on or this backup you speak of. If a group wanted to gank a ship that was doing everything right, there is a 100% chance that it would get blown up. Am I right?

100% of the time, gankers will win. That does not sound balanced to me.