These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3261 - 2014-09-02 00:24:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Thanks - that's really helpful. It looks like there was some kind of elevating event in late 2013, which is before CODE started targeting them. Any idea what it was?


Miniluv got off break.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Solecist Project
#3262 - 2014-09-02 00:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
The reason why it is so easy to manipulate people is
because they refuse to accept that they are being manipulated
when they are being told.

So they just keep being victims.



Fine... I tried. *shrugs*


Good night, victims! o/

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3263 - 2014-09-02 00:31:32 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
This thread needs a lock!

Please confirm!

I second this. The OP was answered quite clearly by CCP Falcon. Many might not agree with this but I think if the game devs see this is part of the gameplay then I don't see it being changed. This thread has been reduced to silly trolling.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#3264 - 2014-09-02 00:56:07 UTC
I disagree. This thread is probably the only reason I've visited the forums in the last few weeks.

Any other CODE/James315 thread gets locked before page two. So, if this is the closest thing to CODE. GD sticky topic we are allowed to have on GD, I'll take it.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3265 - 2014-09-02 03:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I disagree. This thread is probably the only reason I've visited the forums in the last few weeks.

Any other CODE/James315 thread gets locked before page two. So, if this is the closest thing to CODE. GD sticky topic we are allowed to have on GD, I'll take it.



Obviously you haven't found this thread with over 400 replies...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199310


Do we really need a sticky for people to troll about bumping and suicide ganking? CCP has said both are part of the game mechanics and not an exploit.

I honestly don't like bumping as a game mechanic. Not because I don't think it's "fair" but it seems silly to "bump" another ship in space. I can whine and cry on the forms for weeks but you know what... At the end of the day it's how the game is played so adapt and overcome.


You can avoid most ganks if you use your brain... People make themselves easy targets and they die. Maybe we need a sticky on facts about how not to get ganked rather than a whine thread about how ganking is bad. Then people will stop being easy targets and the problem won't be there. As long as you have AFK pilots in untanked ships you'll have ganks.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3266 - 2014-09-02 03:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
IIshira wrote:
Not because I don't think it's "fair" but it seems silly to "bump" another ship in space. I can whine and cry on the forms for weeks but you know what... At the end of the day it's how the game is played so adapt and overcome.


Agreed. Bumping harmlessly off each other is kind of silly, even for a Submarine game. But it's less silly than the two alternatives; ghosting through each other and damaging each other. The first alternative is more silly due to expectations concerns, and the second due to obvious gameplay problems.

I'm sure you know all this, I just wanted to make clear to other readers the reasons why the silly harmless bumping mechanic remains (and should remain) in the game.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3267 - 2014-09-02 03:27:52 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I can absolutely confirm that it's Fabulous Rod now. He spun that same Darkfall story in the Rattlesnake thread.

Looks like his attitude hasn't improved any, either. Still expecting the game to cater to his maladjusted expectations, instead of adjusting himself to the reality of the game. And lashing out at anyone who cares to correct him, to boot.


I remember Fabulous Rod. He spent a couple weeks spamming me with hilariously abusive mails on his alt after making a fan thread for me on the forums.

Because a Forum alt isn't enough, you have to have a mail alt.

Oh, it's definitely him. Just look at this gem:

NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
You such an obnoxious person that I would not be suprirsed you ask for proof that the sky is blue. Get a life, trash. You are beyond pathetic, finding it worthwhile to argue in such a ridiculous fashion, so nonsensically and irrespective of common sense.

Have fun taking those heavy doses of denial and constantly filling the void that is your social life. The facts are right in front of you.

You probably think you've won something, given that I have taken time out of my day to be one more voice letting you know that you are indeed a pathetic moron who spends all your time arguing (nonsensically) with everyone, endlessly on a video game forum.

Clearly i win at life. You can't even win a forum argument nor admit you are wrong. It must really suck to be you, kid.
He fails to present any kind of argument and is deeply troubled that the facts don't agree with him and that proof is demanded of him for his outlandish statements. And since he can't actually win without those facts and arguments, he instantly becomes abusive. Lol
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3268 - 2014-09-02 03:28:19 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I disagree. This thread is probably the only reason I've visited the forums in the last few weeks.

Any other CODE/James315 thread gets locked before page two. So, if this is the closest thing to CODE. GD sticky topic we are allowed to have on GD, I'll take it.



Obviously you haven't found this thread with over 400 replies...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199310


Do we really need a sticky for people to troll about bumping and suicide ganking? CCP has said both are part of the game mechanics and not an exploit.

I honestly don't like bumping as a game mechanic. Not because I don't think it's "fair" but it seems silly to "bump" another ship in space. I can whine and cry on the forms for weeks but you know what... At the end of the day it's how the game is played so adapt and overcome.


You can avoid most ganks if you use your brain... People make themselves easy targets and they die. Maybe we need a sticky on facts about how not to get ganked rather than a whine thread about how ganking is bad. Then people will stop being easy targets and the problem won't be there. As long as you have AFK pilots in untanked ships you'll have ganks.


What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3269 - 2014-09-02 03:31:49 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.


It's a sandbox game.

Full cargo or empty should not make any difference. "Because I can" is always a good enough reason to do anything, whether it be to fly into the sun, take a faction battleship on a Titanomachy tour, or suicide gank an empty ship.

Curtailing player freedom is not the solution, if you think too many haulers are dying. If they actually bothered to be at their keyboards and play the game correctly, most of those deaths would not have happened.

No nerf is needed to something that has a foolproof counter, even if people are stupid enough to not use the counter.

"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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3270 - 2014-09-02 03:31:51 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3271 - 2014-09-02 03:33:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?


Hurt feelings, obviously.

"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.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3272 - 2014-09-02 03:35:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?


Because Eve risk/reward mechanics should make that unprofitable, and hence rare.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3273 - 2014-09-02 03:39:28 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.


There are such mechanics. You, in fact, named the result of them. I've underlined it.

CONCORD, lack of insurance payment, sec status, and GCC all discourage the ganking of targets. Thus targets that are unprofitable to gank under those conditions get ganked less.

If you remove those mechanics, how much ganking of tanked, empty haulers would you expect?

Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?


Because Eve risk/reward mechanics should make that unprofitable, and hence rare.


It is unprofitable to gank empty, tanked haulers. What's the problem?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3274 - 2014-09-02 03:39:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
Au contraire....I firmly believe that 3 optimally fitted and operated bumping machariels can render a freighter unable to warp off.
What you believe is irrelevant. The fact is that they can't — it is game-mechanically impossible for them to do so. If you believe otherwise, it proves you do not know of or understand the mechanics involved.

Quote:
Have you proven the contrary?
Yes. I gave you all the information related to this and you responded by lying and saying it wasn't relevant. Best-case scenario is that you ignored the proof because you didn't understand the mechanics; worst-case is that you were lying yet again to cover for the fact that you knew you had been lying all along and that this proved it (yet again).

Quote:
And I didn't twist the language at all.
This is a lie.
He said that CONCORD creates a disincentive and that their response is reactive, same as a law enforcement agency.
You (and only you) claimed that he said CONCORD is a law enforcement agency.

Quote:
Because Eve risk/reward mechanics should make that unprofitable, and hence rare.
It already is unprofitable and rare. So why should there be less of it?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#3275 - 2014-09-02 03:39:52 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?


Because Eve risk/reward mechanics should make that unprofitable, and hence rare.


It is unprofitable and it is rare.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3276 - 2014-09-02 03:42:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Au contraire....I firmly believe that 3 optimally fitted and operated bumping machariels can render a freighter unable to warp off.
What you believe is irrelevant. The fact is that they can't.


Even if 3 optimally fitted and flown Machs were inescapable (which they aren't), why shouldn't 3 players (plus the 10+ player gank squad) not be able to successfully mess with a single player?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3277 - 2014-09-02 03:45:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Au contraire....I firmly believe that 3 optimally fitted and operated bumping machariels can render a freighter unable to warp off.
What you believe is irrelevant. The fact is that they can't.


Even if 3 optimally fitted and flown Machs were inescapable (which they aren't), why shouldn't 3 players (plus the 10+ player gank squad) not be able to successfully mess with a single player?


Well I think they are (and have not seen proof to the contrary, just assertion). And it's not a question of messing, its a question of what CONCORD should respond to, and how they would react to the victim being pinned down. I think they would escort him to safety. And when I'm looking at these recent freighter ganks, a lot of them are empty/have minimal cargo, so at least as far as freighter ganks go, ganking empty ones does not see to be so rare.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3278 - 2014-09-02 03:47:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
What I would like to see are mechanics that cause more ganking of undertanked haulers with excessive cargo, and less ganking of well tanked/empty haulers that are a net loss to the gankers. I think that would make suicide ganking a much more valuable and logical activity.

Why should there be less ganking of empty or tanked haulers?


Because Eve risk/reward mechanics should make that unprofitable, and hence rare.


It is unprofitable and it is rare.


So much so, in fact, that people literally have to subsidize it in order for it to happen at all. Which is why New Order supporters are such good, kind hearted people.

"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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3279 - 2014-09-02 03:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well I think they are (and have not seen proof to the contrary, just assertion).
Yes you have. You just didn't understand what was shown to you because you don't understand or know about the mechanics involved. So, again, what you think is irrelevant — the undeniable fact is that they can't.


Quote:
And it's not a question of messing, its a question of what CONCORD should respond to, and how they would react to the victim being pinned down.
And the answer is simple: since it's not an aggressive act, they should do nothing.

Quote:
And when I'm looking at these recent freighter ganks, a lot of them are empty/have minimal cargo
How many and by whom?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3280 - 2014-09-02 03:51:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well I think they are (and have not seen proof to the contrary, just assertion).
Yes you have. You just didn't understand what was shown to you because you don't understand or know about the mechanics involved. So, again, what you think is irrelevant — the undeniable fact is that they can't.


Quote:
And it's not a question of messing, its a question of what CONCORD should respond to, and how they would react to the victim being pinned down.
And the answer is simple: since it's not an aggressive act, they should do nothing.

Quote:
And when I'm looking at these recent freighter ganks, a lot of them are empty/have minimal cargo
How many and by whom?


Repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it true. Please provide a source for the freighter being able to escape bumping, or admit that you have none.

And again about the bumping (and for the last time...I can only repeat the same point so many times) - it's inconsistent with how CONCORD would and should act - so fix it.

And look through zkill for the latest freighter kills to see what I mean.