These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1341 - 2014-07-05 20:51:33 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
Casual players (like myself) don't really have a chance to excell in EvE, do we? Guess I should be satisfied with what I've done so far. Guess solo mining (especially by new players) is a playstyle considered 'unwanted' by CCP.

that's so sad Cry

i don't usually get teary over works of fiction but you've touched my heart today
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1342 - 2014-07-05 20:54:16 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Stuff


There's something different about you. Did you get a haircut or something?

Or have I just been away too long?

Mr Epeen Cool
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#1343 - 2014-07-05 20:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
[..]

No wonder you don't want 'alt recycling' when you allow so many other activities that would get bans in other games.

Thank you very much for the explanation. Seems like a system that would work only for particular skill sets.
It doesn't work particularly well for others (like mining or industry).

Mining only has the Venture (and now the prospect) for early use. the mining barges and exhumers are very expensive both in time and isk when compared to the 'quick-load' destroyers fitted to destroy them.

That points to a definate divide in the player types, doesn't it? well-armed predator vs unarmed prey

Casual players (like myself) don't really have a chance to excell in EvE, do we?
Some people don't have the time/money to run multiple accounts as you just described (if I understand the explanation correctly).
Guess I should be satisfied with what I've done so far. Guess solo mining (especially by new players) is a playstyle considered 'unwanted' by CCP.


That sounds as if you think that gankers gaining a benefit from alt recycling while miners don't is an advantage for gankers.
I mean, even if alt recycling was allowed, wouldn't it be better if there was no need for it, since as miner or missioner you won't lose sec status, which is the sole reason for alt recycling to exist? To get rid of the negative sec status.

I am a very casual player, btw, and I only have one account as well.
I don't excel in EvE. But that's because it is hard to truly excel at anything when there are many people competing. And in EvE there are tens of thousands of people competing with each other.
Now, if your goal is to excel, then you need to define what you want to excel in, and then work towards that goal, and I am sure you'll be able to do very good, if you concentrate on that goal, even when playing casually. You won't be on the top, maybe, but you will be very good.

I just find it hard to understand what "excelling at solo mining" would mean, for example.

Oh, about solo mining: Why do you think it is unwanted? There are thousands of people who solo mine either every now and then, or frequently. I myself do some solo gas-mining in wormholes sometimes.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1344 - 2014-07-05 20:58:41 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

No wonder you don't want 'alt recycling' when you allow so many other activities that would get bans in other games.


What might those things be? Even WoW allows PvP to happen on a PvP server. EVE is just one big PvP server afterall.


Quote:

Casual players (like myself) don't really have a chance to excell in EvE, do we?
Some people don't have the time/money to run multiple accounts as you just described (if I understand the explanation correctly).
Guess I should be satisfied with what I've done so far. Guess solo mining (especially by new players) is a playstyle considered 'unwanted' by CCP.


I have a 60+ hour a week job. I consider myself a casual player.

I have between three and five active accounts from month to month. It's not even hard.

And yes, "solo mining", if by that you mean deliberately flying a "prey animal" ship, can get you shot at. Turns out if you choose to be a prey animal, the predator animals will try to eat you.

"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.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#1345 - 2014-07-05 21:19:29 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
Guess solo mining (especially by new players) is a playstyle considered 'unwanted' by CCP.

No it isn't. But playing EVE solo is not the best idea, especially for new players.

Remove standings and insurance.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1346 - 2014-07-05 21:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aalysia Valkeiper
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


I have a 60+ hour a week job. I consider myself a casual player.

I have between three and five active accounts from month to month. It's not even hard.

And yes, "solo mining", if by that you mean deliberately flying a "prey animal" ship, can get you shot at. Turns out if you choose to be a prey animal, the predator animals will try to eat you.


And to that, I agree.

Might be a surprise to you and a few others in this forum, but I dispise the "AFK miner" and the "AFK hauler". I 'get it' that noob-ganking (established characters preying on noob characters) is deemed acceptable in EvE.
In fact, I appreciate gankers make AFK players pay for their inattention.

I just find it's too easy for gankers to kill even the most attentive miner 95% of the time if they show up in the same belt. I just feel the miner should NOT be unarmed (sorry, but I don't consider drones good enough).

There should be some way the miner can (on occasion) fit for 'anti-gank' and take down a ganker (who expected an easy killmail) WITHOUT concord intervention (as would be the case outside of high sec).

Ganking will happen (and should against AFK). Pro-active "Anti-ganking" should as well. This stuff about 'defense fits' and 'tanking' is all well and good, but gankers choose their targets. There should be targets that surprise the gankers by being a fighter instead a meal.

To use your analogy... yes, the predator (lion) goes after the prey (antelope), but sometimes discovers he is facing what he did not go after (the bull).

the best defenders in the natural kingdom (like porcupines, armadillos, ect.) STILL have offensive weapons, but miners don't?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1347 - 2014-07-05 21:44:02 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:


I just find it's too easy for gankers to kill even the most attentive miner 95% of the time if they show up in the same belt. I just feel the miner should NOT be unarmed (sorry, but I don't consider drones good enough).


You're thinking about it the wrong way. You're forgetting that a mining ship is a prey animal. The prey animal wins by escaping.

And it's entirely too easy to escape as is, if you bother aligning. Or heck, even watching local is sufficient, when you see 5+ neg tens jump into local, you might consider bringing out d-scan.

Quote:

There should be some way the miner can (on occasion) fit for 'anti-gank' and take down a ganker (who expected an easy killmail) WITHOUT concord intervention (as would be the case outside of high sec).


A procurer can do this, but if you mean actual guns, then you're out of luck. Barges give that up for the ability to fit strip miners. Meanwhile, however, the Prospect is actually a semi respectable combat frigate, especially in groups. So is the Nereus, and several other of the T1 hauler line.


Quote:

Ganking will happen (and should against AFK). Pro-active "Anti-ganking" should as well. This stuff about 'defense fits' and 'tanking' is all well and good, but gankers choose their targets. There should be targets that surprise the gankers by being a fighter instead a meal.


Yes, we choose our targets. That's why fitting for tank works. It means that the guy next to you in the belt is the one who dies, not you.

That's how passive vs active gameplay works. If you are a miner, then you are just destructible scenery as far as other players are concerned.

If you want to put the boot in, fly combat ships. Asking for some kind of "all in one" ship that prints money by mining, and can defeat several destroyers in open combat is just not going to happen.

"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.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1348 - 2014-07-05 21:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Aalysia Valkeiper
and you are not understanding what I mean by 'anti-ganking'.

ganking starts by the ganker deciding to attack a miner whom he is very certain he can kill. In high sec, he must be quick enough to do this before concord arrives, but otherwise, the ganker will reign supreme (unless the miner has friends in bound when the ganker appears).

To me, "anti-ganking" means the ganker THINKS he's going after a miner, but has attacked a warship. This means the target is NOT a miner (he can NOT mine at all). The target is a ship that LOOKS like a miner, but is armed and equipped to fight.

This is NOT a ship that "does everything" as you said. The ship has given up the ability to mine for another function. It is a ship that does one thing and one thing only... turn the tables on gankers who have gotten careless.

A dedicated combat hull can not do this because the ganker will not attack a warship. The ganker would leave the warship alone.

The ganker WOULD go after the 'anti-ganker' because it looks like his chosen prey. It looks like a meal, not hell-in-space.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1349 - 2014-07-05 22:17:07 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

A dedicated combat hull can not do this because the ganker will not attack a warship. The ganker would leave the warship alone.

The ganker WOULD go after the 'anti-ganker' because it looks like his chosen prey. It looks like a meal, not hell-in-space.


So then you are actually asking for an all in one. A ship that can theoretically do both mining and combat, so a potential ganker would not be able to know whether it was fitted for combat or mining without ship scanning it? Well, I'll tell you right now that I don't think such a thing will happen, nor should it.

Also...

You do realize you can look at other player's turrets from a pretty damned long distance, right? It's a matter of about five seconds to see whether you're fitting strip miners or blasters/pulse lasers/autocannons/whatever. Nevermind that, if this theoretical new ship class was just sitting in a belt without mining lasers on, I wouldn't attack it in the first place.

This whole idea of "miners with teeth" falls apart when you take any human element, or game balance into account. It can be done with haulers anyway, just do that instead.

"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.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1350 - 2014-07-05 22:26:17 UTC
Also Aalysia,

Proc and Skiffs have been buffed to fit a combat role with Drone damage.

Just because you don't see it happening does not mean it does not happen. Your pulling at straws and it shows.

Plenty of gankers die by the hand of anti-ganking stuff. The difference? Gankers don't care that they loose their ships.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1351 - 2014-07-05 22:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Aalysia Valkeiper
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

A dedicated combat hull can not do this because the ganker will not attack a warship. The ganker would leave the warship alone.

The ganker WOULD go after the 'anti-ganker' because it looks like his chosen prey. It looks like a meal, not hell-in-space.


So then you are actually asking for an all in one. A ship that can theoretically do both mining and combat, so a potential ganker would not be able to know whether it was fitted for combat or mining without ship scanning it? Well, I'll tell you right now that I don't think such a thing will happen, nor should it.

Also...

You do realize you can look at other player's turrets from a pretty damned long distance, right? It's a matter of about five seconds to see whether you're fitting strip miners or blasters/pulse lasers/autocannons/whatever. Nevermind that, if this theoretical new ship class was just sitting in a belt without mining lasers on, I wouldn't attack it in the first place.

This whole idea of "miners with teeth" falls apart when you take any human element, or game balance into account. It can be done with haulers anyway, just do that instead.


look at history. in BOTH world wars, during the roman empire (and even before), and even today, Q-ships operated (and still operate) against submarines, raiders, and pirates.

Well, you are unlikely to fall for the trick... maybe. Sensors and scanners can be jammed, which should raise an alarm for the ganker. Not all gankers are careful like that. Just like not all miners or haulers are careful. This is NOT an unbalancing ship type. If it was, the entire idea of ganking would also be considered unbalanced.

That fact that haulers can be equipped for weapons is besides the point... mining barges and exhumers can not. If there were versions which enabled that barge or exhumer to GIVE up mining to ambush the ganker (who is already preying on unarmed miners), it would not be unbalancing.

Opening up this option for miners (Q-ships or the ability to operate as an 'anti-ganker') would open a whole new theater of PvP in EvE.

CCP wants miners to leave high sec. The main reason players DON'T leave high sec is they don't feel safe when they're BIG, FAT MEAL TICKETS in low sec. Give them an option to fight back and watch what happens.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#1352 - 2014-07-05 22:36:40 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
and you are not understanding what I mean by 'anti-ganking'.

ganking starts by the ganker deciding to attack a miner whom he is very certain he can kill. In high sec, he must be quick enough to do this before concord arrives, but otherwise, the ganker will reign supreme (unless the miner has friends in bound when the ganker appears).

To me, "anti-ganking" means the ganker THINKS he's going after a miner, but has attacked a warship. This means the target is NOT a miner (he can NOT mine at all). The target is a ship that LOOKS like a miner, but is armed and equipped to fight.

This is NOT a ship that "does everything" as you said. The ship has given up the ability to mine for another function. It is a ship that does one thing and one thing only... turn the tables on gankers who have gotten careless.

A dedicated combat hull can not do this because the ganker will not attack a warship. The ganker would leave the warship alone.

The ganker WOULD go after the 'anti-ganker' because it looks like his chosen prey. It looks like a meal, not hell-in-space.

This is what the mining cruisers used to be good at. Done right, you would convey the impression of a soft and easy target (i.e. a newbie with limited tanking skills), that could be handled by one or two gankers. But with less than 12 days training you were able to field a decent T2 tank. Concord did the rest.

Remove standings and insurance.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1353 - 2014-07-05 22:40:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

look at history. in BOTH world wars, during the roman empire (and even before), and even today, Q-ships operated (and still operate) against submarines, raiders, and pirates.


Oh Good Lord let's not bring irl into this, please. Not only was that the exception and NOT the rule, but such things still routinely died in the face of genuine military vessels, which is what pretty much every other class of ships is.


Quote:

That fact that haulers can be equipped for weapons is besides the point... mining barges and exhumers can not. If there were versions which enabled that barge or exhumer to GIVE up mining to ambush the ganker (who is already preying on unarmed miners), it would not be unbalancing.


Both of those things are intended. The only dedicated mining ships that can fit guns are the Venture and the Prospect. And once again, this is because if you get Strip Mining modules, you do not get turrets. There is a reason for that.

If you want to "ambush the ganker" just try flying a Thrasher. You can almost one shot him with it. Or better yet, something with ECM, or logi on the miner he is attacking.

This is why I keep telling you that you're asking for an "all in one" uber ship. Because what you want already exists, you just want to have everything in one ship class. And that is just not acceptable.

"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.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1354 - 2014-07-05 22:44:07 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:

This is what the mining cruisers used to be good at. Done right, you would convey the impression of a soft and easy target (i.e. a newbie with limited tanking skills), that could be handled by one or two gankers. But with less than 12 days training you were able to field a decent T2 tank. Concord did the rest.


but that option's no longer available, is it?
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#1355 - 2014-07-05 22:52:00 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:

This is what the mining cruisers used to be good at. Done right, you would convey the impression of a soft and easy target (i.e. a newbie with limited tanking skills), that could be handled by one or two gankers. But with less than 12 days training you were able to field a decent T2 tank. Concord did the rest.


but that option's no longer available, is it?

No, we got the procurer and skiff instead. Little monsters which can field a tank of 90k or 115k EHP with T2 mods and drone bonuses on top. Not too bad either. Problem is, most miners don't fit a proper tank. For various reasons.

Remove standings and insurance.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1356 - 2014-07-05 22:52:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

look at history. in BOTH world wars, during the roman empire (and even before), and even today, Q-ships operated (and still operate) against submarines, raiders, and pirates.


Oh Good Lord let's not bring irl into this, please. Not only was that the exception and NOT the rule, but such things still routinely died in the face of genuine military vessels, which is what pretty much every other class of ships is.


Quote:

That fact that haulers can be equipped for weapons is besides the point... mining barges and exhumers can not. If there were versions which enabled that barge or exhumer to GIVE up mining to ambush the ganker (who is already preying on unarmed miners), it would not be unbalancing.


Both of those things are intended. The only dedicated mining ships that can fit guns are the Venture and the Prospect. And once again, this is because if you get Strip Mining modules, you do not get turrets. There is a reason for that.

If you want to "ambush the ganker" just try flying a Thrasher. You can almost one shot him with it. Or better yet, something with ECM, or logi on the miner he is attacking.

This is why I keep telling you that you're asking for an "all in one" uber ship. Because what you want already exists, you just want to have everything in one ship class. And that is just not acceptable.


correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thrasher a warship? The exact type of vessel the ganker will avoid? The type that can NOT bait in a ganker to turn the tables on him?

I'm talking about giving a ganker a reason to hesitate before attacking an unarmed miner. Giving that ganker a reason to think "is this really a fat juicy target or is it something I don't want to mess with?" is the main purpose of Q-ships.

Make this available and gankers will be even more rare in high sec, but (most importantly) miners can then feel safer venturing into low and null because the gankers would hesitate.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1357 - 2014-07-05 23:00:56 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the thrasher a warship? The exact type of vessel the ganker will avoid? The type that can NOT bait in a ganker to turn the tables on him?


You are corrected. While the Thrasher is a warship, if you want guns, you should have to fly a combat ship. Just like how if I want to mine, I can't really use a Devoter. The right tool for the right job.

And like I said, if you really want to bait somebody, the T1 haulers can already serve this purpose. That and the Procurer. My alliance has a standing policy that a Procurer is always bait. It's about as notorious for that as the Maller.

Quote:

I'm talking about giving a ganker a reason to hesitate before attacking an unarmed miner. Giving that ganker a reason to think "is this really a fat juicy target or is it something I don't want to mess with?" is the main purpose of Q-ships.


No, the main purpose of the concept of Q-ships is to ruin game balance. The concept of game balance is that you can't, nor should you be able to, get everything out of one hull class.

Quote:

Make this available and gankers will be even more rare in high sec, but (most importantly) miners can then feel safer venturing into low and null because the gankers would hesitate.


LOL. Now I can tell you haven't actually done it. A Procurer can solo 3 stealth bombers by the way.

The reason most miners don't feel safe venturing into lowsec and nullsec is because they are risk averse cowards who explicitly do NOT want to have to put in any effort to defend themselves.

"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.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1358 - 2014-07-05 23:01:18 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Oh Good Lord let's not bring irl into this, please. Not only was that the exception and NOT the rule, but such things still routinely died in the face of genuine military vessels, which is what pretty much every other class of ships is.



very true and the Q-ship I'm speaking of would likely fall to a warship of the same size with a standard fit.

gankers don't have standard fits, though.

I must say again. The Q-ship is NOT a miner. It does NOT mine. it is NOT a "do everything" ship. It has ONE function... combat against an attacker not equipped to meet resistance
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1359 - 2014-07-05 23:05:19 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:

gankers don't have standard fits, though.


Yeah, we definitely do. One thing we do well, and it's a large part of why we have adapted despite the repeated nerfs to ganking, is share information.

Quote:

I must say again. The Q-ship is NOT a miner. It does NOT mine. it is NOT a "do everything" ship. It has ONE function... combat against an attacker not equipped to meet resistance


Lol. You have yet to explain how this is supposed to actually work. So how about some specifics, please? Are you going to just add a new class of Mining Barge that can't fit Strip Miners, but can fit guns? Or are you saying they should add gun slots to the current barges? Or what?

"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.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1360 - 2014-07-05 23:10:01 UTC
Why am I even trying to speak logically, here? We obviously have a serious differance of opinion and CCP agrees with you.

I will continue to play as I am.

I will continue to mine solo and reap what others consider meager isk (but I'm satisfied with).

I will continue to flee with my tail between my legs when a destroyer or frigate flashes red in local because I'm not allowed to mount weapons.

I will continue to watch people I introduce to EvE give up when their trial accounts expire.

And I'll reconsider why I even bother playing when my subscription expires in November.

CCP won't care, other players won't care, and the game will keep going.