These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anslo
Scope Works
#3561 - 2014-09-02 21:13:06 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Devils Embrace wrote:
Anslo i know you played for a few years now.... you seriously dont remember back when people used battleships to gank freighters? Before the insurance nerf?

No I was too busy taking on a challenge.

Real talk though, I remember. Made isk off the insurance. They nerfed dat. I was happy. I still don't see it as even risk though. It may technically be more 'expensive,' but you're (not YOU but just in general) drawing a ******* parallel here saying that a few mil isk risk on a Cata is a fair match to a couple hundred mil dunked from a freighter.

It just doesn't match in my mind. I see it as low risk, low skill. Inb4 hurrhurr much planning such skill. Try taking 15 T3's and 4 guardians against 15 Archons and 20-30+ baltecs and WINNING before talking to me about a challenge requiring skill.

Nerds.

/me drops the mic.


I would love to see the battle report on that. Honestly


TISHU+UNICORNS vs GEWNS. I learned a LOT from that. Those kind of fights, to me, are true challenges, requiring skill.

Ganking a highsec bro,...lol

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3562 - 2014-09-02 21:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Anslo wrote:
Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?' I know this is a side track, but I can't take this statement seriously due to what I just mentioned.


Most HS rewards are not player determined. Mission, Incursion, etc payouts are fixed by CCP, as are Ratting payouts. The issue is that the CCP determined rewards for the different areas of space are out of whack. But that's a topic for another thread.


Quote:
...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking?
M8
Pls
Stahp


A Catalyst is less capable and more expensive to lose than a pre-insurance nerf battleship was. Those are the only two points of comparison I was making.

Quote:
Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what? Not once did I mention anything about getting rid of anyone. It's about balance.


Ok, then what specific nerfs to ganking will be sufficient and why, exactly do you think the last 11 years of nerfs have not reduced ganking enough?

"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
Anslo
Scope Works
#3563 - 2014-09-02 21:18:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Both. You see, some of their rewards are player-determined and can be left alone just fine. Many others are mechanically determined and could stand to be nerfed due to the minute risks involved in acquiring them.

I can agree. But real talk, you don't see it argued that fairly around here do you? BTW you look different. New hair cut? I liek.


Quote:
Yes. It's an apt comparison since one was the cheap ganking tool of choice before the nerf, and the other was what replaced it in response to that nerf. How is this comparison odd to you?

The value is still, as I said, uneven to me. A cata and insurance is just a few mil tossed away, versus the kill mail or drops you get.

Quote:
Time, ISK, income, future ability to operate.

Time. OK. ISK, see above. Ability to operate? How? They can zoom about highsec as a criminal all day. It happens...every day.

Quote:
And even if those risks were low (they're not), so what? But it in the balance against the utterly minuscule risk that the haulers face,

Naw brah naw, stop RIGHT there. List to me, right now, how it's minuscule. Cause the existence and life span of this very thread calls out on that bullshit.

Quote:
and it becomes fairly obvious that the risks the gankers face reduces the risk the haulers face to pitifully low levels. The haulers could do with a bit more risk, and a good way of making that happen is to take some of the pressure off of the gankers.

This statement...makes no sense to me. Like, I can't even right now with this logic. They risk of death for a ganker is pretty much a sure thing yeah, but it still comes down to that isk worth. A cata to a ganker is nothing (in general). A freighter load is a whoooole lot of something to a hauler. A bit more risk? They have barely any defense.

In other words; uw0tm8

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Anslo
Scope Works
#3564 - 2014-09-02 21:24:07 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Most HS rewards are not player determined. Mission, Incursion, etc payouts are fixed by CCP, as are Ratting payouts. The issue is that the CCP determined rewards for the different areas of space are out of whack. But that's a topic for another thread.

OK fine, fair enough. I might not agree, but yeah, a different thread.


Quote:
A Catalyst is less capable and more expensive to lose than a pre-insurance nerf battleship was. Those are the only two points of comparison I was making.

OK, that's cool. I just still can't say the risk is even. A cata's a couple million isk. A freighter is..well, a whole **** ton more. The hauler may have to start all over in his Eve life, while the ganker just slips into another Cata.

Quote:
Ok, then what specific nerfs to ganking will be sufficient and why, exactly do you think the last 11 years of nerfs have not reduced ganking enough?

Bro, it seems to me ganking is occurring more so now, for isk AND tears. I dunno if nerfs would do anything, some people are just wired in a ****** up way.

I think the module to keep someone from being bumped while mining would help, but freighters? That's different. I dunno what you could do. The rigs for freighters was, imo, a good start. But it doesn't seem to be curbing much (but hey that's just player fault, nothing more). But making a freighter a little harder to dunk, or making the risk of ganking and the reward received match, would help.

But real talk, I won't lie and say I know the answer. I don't do game development. I just see what I see and call it as I see it, doesn't mean I know how to fix it vOv

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Anslo
Scope Works
#3565 - 2014-09-02 21:26:44 UTC
Anyway, this is boring. I'm gonna go play eve instead of argue about it. Enjoy your nerd fight o/

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#3566 - 2014-09-02 21:35:31 UTC
Ok I didnt read the novel that this thread has become but just to add my pointless point of view.

Ganking is fine. No need to really nerf it. Though it would be nice for a hauler to have a decent defense mechanism. What that is. Who knows.

Only thing that has ever bothered me about high sec ganking is bumping. It seems to be an exploit in my mind, since its clearly an aggressive action that has no consequence. However there is really nothing that can be done about it. Ships bump for harmless reasons all the time. How can you tell that from a freighter being bumped so it cant warp. You cant.

I can understand the hauler pilots hatred of this behavior. I mean who wants to sit back and just watch their ship go poof and not be able to really do anything.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3567 - 2014-09-02 21:39:10 UTC
Anslo wrote:
I can agree. But real talk, you don't see it argued that fairly around here do you?
Sure you do. It appears pretty much every time the topic of balancing highsec income pops up. It's just that this topic has become a bit more rare now that people are so focused about complaining about ganking for reasons they can't articulate.

Quote:
The value is still, as I said, uneven to me. A cata and insurance is just a few mil tossed away, versus the kill mail or drops you get.

Time. OK. ISK, see above. Ability to operate? How? They can zoom about highsec as a criminal all day. It happens...every day.
This is where we come into the player-determined part. The value is uneven because the victim makes it uneven. And no, this is not blaming the victim — it's looking at where the agency exists. The victim is the only person who has any control whatsoever over that value and over any cost dissonance. They decide how much ISK the ganker has to expend; they decide how much ISK the ganker can get.

This extends to the ability to operate: the gankers can zoom around in highsec all day because… (drumroll)… the victims let them. This risk is entirely player-determined. If the players determine that the risk should be zero, then the risk becomes zero. If they determine that, then they no longer have any ground for complaints about how low the risk supposedly is — they actively and willingly chose to make it that way.

But more than that, no, ISK is not really a factor. ISK is not something you can or should balance around. If you do, you end up with ISK-tanking, which is a fundamentally broken concept: just because you bought something expensive does not mean it should be immune to my very cheap thing. Quite the opposite — the fact that you can destroy vast sums while expending very small sums yourself proves there is proper balance.

Quote:
Naw brah naw, stop RIGHT there. List to me, right now, how it's minuscule.
The chances of it happening is ~0% and the expected loss approaches the same number (since we're multiplying with a probability of ~0).

Quote:
This statement...makes no sense to me. Like, I can't even right now with this logic. They risk of death for a ganker is pretty much a sure thing yeah, but it still comes down to that isk worth. A cata to a ganker is nothing (in general). A freighter load is a whoooole lot of something to a hauler. A bit more risk? They have barely any defense.
What's your problem with it?

• Haulers have ~0 risk. This is very very low.
• Gankers have a much higher risk. This isn't very difficult since the point of comparison is ~0%.
• The only real way to increase the former is to reduce the latter.
∴ Even if the risk gankers face should happen to be low, it's worth lowering it to bring up the haulers' risk to a more reasonable level.

The beauty of it is that we can alter the ganker's risk without touching the (supposedly low) ISK loss you're fixated on. But again, ISK worth is not what it comes down to. Not only does the risk include far more factors, the ISK risk itself is not unbalanced just because there is more ISK at stake on one side. If anything, the risks are unbalanced in the opposite direction because of the respective expected outcomes.
Helena Tiberius Mabata
Doomheim
#3568 - 2014-09-02 21:44:36 UTC
We gank ships not to hurt people but to enforce the Laws of Highsec on everyone operating in our territories, It seems people don't understand the concept of fighting for a cause for some reason, perhaps because they have no meaningful cause to fight for and so it is beyond their comprehension.

( if you think otherwise please see my post in "pushing for harder punishments on high sec gankers" )
@ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4979969#post4979969

And bumping has long been a certified CCP mechanic, if your AFK or unable to use any of a dozen ways to avoid or negate it then you deserve to be caught and subsequently decomissioned.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to just buy a permit?
Yours for only 10,000,000 ISK!!
virgofire
Vay Mining Corporation
#3569 - 2014-09-02 21:46:13 UTC
Helena Tiberius Mabata wrote:
We gank ships not to hurt people but to enforce the Laws of Highsec on everyone operating in our territories, It seems people don't understand the concept of fighting for a cause for some reason, perhaps because they have no meaningful cause to fight for and so it is beyond their comprehension.

( if you think otherwise please see my post in "pushing for harder punishments on high sec gankers" )
@ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4979969#post4979969

And bumping has long been a certified CCP mechanic, if your AFK or unable to use any of a dozen ways to avoid or negate it then you deserve to be caught and subsequently decomissioned.

Wouldn't it be so much easier to just buy a permit?
Yours for only 10,000,000 ISK!!


Why does this sound like an ad that would be on during Rush Limbaugh's radio show?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3570 - 2014-09-02 21:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Anslo wrote:
OK, that's cool. I just still can't say the risk is even. A cata's a couple million isk. A freighter is..well, a whole **** ton more. The hauler may have to start all over in his Eve life, while the ganker just slips into another Cata.


Cost is not a balancing factor like that. Otherwise T3s would have much higher EHP than Combat BCs.

Quote:
I think the module to keep someone from being bumped while mining would help, but freighters? That's different. I dunno what you could do. The rigs for freighters was, imo, a good start. But it doesn't seem to be curbing much (but hey that's just player fault, nothing more). But making a freighter a little harder to dunk, or making the risk of ganking and the reward received match, would help.


CCP gave Freighter pilots the tools to make themselves much more expensive to gank. The freighter pilots refuse to use them, instead fitting modules that make themselves cheaper to gank.

Also, there is a module that will get any freighter right through a cloud of gankers, if used judiciously.
Stasis Webifier II
(This is not an exhaustive list)

"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
Paranoid Loyd
#3571 - 2014-09-02 21:51:01 UTC
virgofire wrote:
Why does this sound like an ad that would be on during Rush Limbaugh's radio show?


Because annoying as it is, it is quite effective when worded in a way that makes you remember.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#3572 - 2014-09-02 23:56:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

10. Discussion of warnings and bans is prohibited.

Such matters shall remain private between CCP and the involved user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through email or private messaging. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including petition responses and emails) received from any of the aforementioned parties.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.



That said, I would like to state the following:
With the exception of the light-hearted 'fun' threads (this thread is not one of those), I always do my utmost best to stay impartial when moderating this forum. In other words I very seldom take a stance.

Today I do.

I have flown my Freighters, Jump Freighters, Blockade Runners, Deep space Transports and even my TI Industrials to hell and back in EvE. And still quite often do. High-sec, Low-sec, Null-sec, W-Space, I bring my cargo where it needs to go. For myself, my corp, my fellow corp members and our friends. It's one of the many things I like to do in this wonderful game.

In all my years of playing I lost 5 TI Industrials, two Blockade Runners and a Deep Space Transport. For comparison, in 2013 I flew in total 753 hauling runs in various vessels on one character. As said, to hell and back.

You want cargo X to go from A to B? Prepare!.
Choose the ship you need, fit it well and make sure you are familiar with the fit. Scout the route, even in High-sec. For the bigger ships, use an escort and/or someone to web you for getting into warp faster. Use a jumpclone with appropriate implants for more (warp)speed, tank etcetera, use drugs as well for the same purpose. All this among other things.

Hell, accompanied by some friends in combat/Ewar ships I have flown a Freighter in Low-sec through a fully fledged all red gate camp (and arrived at 'B' with +/-20k hullpoints left...)..
And I am not afraid to say there are characters out there that are better at it than me. Or against it for that matter.
I will face the latter when that day comes and blow up in a glorious ball of fire.
Local will read soon after: 'Playing character> gf'


Thread re-opened.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3573 - 2014-09-03 00:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
ISD Ezwal wrote:
That said, I would like to state the following:
With the exception of the light-hearted 'fun' threads (this thread is not one of those), I always do my utmost best to stay impartial when moderating this forum. In other words I very seldom take a stance.

Today I do.

I have flown my Freighters, Jump Freighters, Blockade Runners, Deep space Transports and even my TI Industrials to hell and back in EvE. And still quite often do. High-sec, Low-sec, Null-sec, W-Space, I bring my cargo where it needs to go. For myself, my corp, my fellow corp members and our friends. It's one of the many things I like to do in this wonderful game.

In all my years of playing I lost 5 TI Industrials, two Blockade Runners and a Deep Space Transport. For comparison, in 2013 I flew in total 753 hauling runs in various vessels on one character. As said, to hell and back.

You want cargo X to go from A to B? Prepare!.
Choose the ship you need, fit it well and make sure you are familiar with the fit. Scout the route, even in High-sec. For the bigger ships, use an escort and/or someone to web you for getting into warp faster. Use a jumpclone with appropriate implants for more (warp)speed, tank etcetera, use drugs as well for the same purpose. All this among other things.

Hell, accompanied by some friends in combat/Ewar ships I have flown a Freighter in Low-sec through a fully fledged all red gate camp (and arrived at 'B' with +/-20k hullpoints left...)..
And I am not afraid to say there are characters out there that are better at it than me. Or against it for that matter.
I will face the latter when that day comes and blow up in a glorious ball of fire.
Local will read soon after 'Playing character> gf'


Thread re-opened.
I respect your normal impartiality, you guys put up with a lot, and are pretty fair in the way you deal with us.

I respect you even more for making your personal experience and, non ISD, stance public. +1 sir.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Lady Areola Fappington
#3574 - 2014-09-03 00:33:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
I can agree. But real talk, you don't see it argued that fairly around here do you?
Sure you do. It appears pretty much every time the topic of balancing highsec income pops up. It's just that this topic has become a bit more rare now that people are so focused about complaining about ganking for reasons they can't articulate.

Quote:
The value is still, as I said, uneven to me. A cata and insurance is just a few mil tossed away, versus the kill mail or drops you get.

Time. OK. ISK, see above. Ability to operate? How? They can zoom about highsec as a criminal all day. It happens...every day.
This is where we come into the player-determined part. The value is uneven because the victim makes it uneven. And no, this is not blaming the victim — it's looking at where the agency exists. The victim is the only person who has any control whatsoever over that value and over any cost dissonance. They decide how much ISK the ganker has to expend; they decide how much ISK the ganker can get.

This extends to the ability to operate: the gankers can zoom around in highsec all day because… (drumroll)… the victims let them. This risk is entirely player-determined. If the players determine that the risk should be zero, then the risk becomes zero. If they determine that, then they no longer have any ground for complaints about how low the risk supposedly is — they actively and willingly chose to make it that way.

But more than that, no, ISK is not really a factor. ISK is not something you can or should balance around. If you do, you end up with ISK-tanking, which is a fundamentally broken concept: just because you bought something expensive does not mean it should be immune to my very cheap thing. Quite the opposite — the fact that you can destroy vast sums while expending very small sums yourself proves there is proper balance.

Quote:
Naw brah naw, stop RIGHT there. List to me, right now, how it's minuscule.
The chances of it happening is ~0% and the expected loss approaches the same number (since we're multiplying with a probability of ~0).

Quote:
This statement...makes no sense to me. Like, I can't even right now with this logic. They risk of death for a ganker is pretty much a sure thing yeah, but it still comes down to that isk worth. A cata to a ganker is nothing (in general). A freighter load is a whoooole lot of something to a hauler. A bit more risk? They have barely any defense.
What's your problem with it?

• Haulers have ~0 risk. This is very very low.
• Gankers have a much higher risk. This isn't very difficult since the point of comparison is ~0%.
• The only real way to increase the former is to reduce the latter.
∴ Even if the risk gankers face should happen to be low, it's worth lowering it to bring up the haulers' risk to a more reasonable level.

The beauty of it is that we can alter the ganker's risk without touching the (supposedly low) ISK loss you're fixated on. But again, ISK worth is not what it comes down to. Not only does the risk include far more factors, the ISK risk itself is not unbalanced just because there is more ISK at stake on one side. If anything, the risks are unbalanced in the opposite direction because of the respective expected outcomes.



You gots your finger on the pulse of it Tippia, when it comes to risk/reward and highsec ganking.

Now, for the fun part. Doesn't matter in the least for CODE ganking. CODE makes isk on empty hauler kills. The ship itself is pretty meaningless, in fact. Remember, CODE monetized the ganking of miners, at first.

CODE makes it's money on stories and attention. Get a gank, get hilarious tearmail, build a funny blog post, get donations. THAT is where the ISK rolls in from.

The funny part of it all is, the victim in those sort of ganks pretty much has full control of CODEs income. Ranting, raving, these threads, local rages.....that's CODE's "drop" from a gank. And, as we see from the cash ticker on minerbumping, those drops are worth good isk. If every gank target just gave a "gf" and went on their way, there'd not be many funny stories to tell.

Honestly, at this point, we could give the anti-gank crowd every nerf they wanted, and CODE's business would keep going on strong. So long as there's a way to blow up a ship in highsec (and there always will be, straight from CCPs mouth), there'll be ISK to be made. EVE players love tears, so as long as tears are provided, there will be people willing to monetize them.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Doomheim
#3575 - 2014-09-03 01:03:27 UTC  |  Edited by: NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Veers Belvar wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
There should be some kind of status attached to dying to concord too many times that subjugates you to some penalties. Suicide gankers have it far, far too easy in EVE.


Yeah they could have like some sort of thing that could be activated by players to kill them any time, or perhaps a seperate mechanic that just lets you attack them after a certain amount of unlawful kills in highsec. I think you're on to something here.


Which is irrelevant if you are part of CODE and have -10 sec status. But if we made them spend 2 days ratting or running missions to bring their sec status up that might make them pickier about who they blow up.


Exactly right.

Since suicide gankers are risking nothing more than cheap disposable ships, they need to have some counter balances in place, as the current penalties are not significant enough to deter the activity whatsoever and it becomes ever more popular as an easy way to make isk without significant risks or penalties.

No real risk, potentially incredible rewards. Completely unfair to every other profession in EVE.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3576 - 2014-09-03 01:08:17 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

Since suicide gankers are risking nothing more than cheap disposable ships, they need to have some counter balances in place as the current penalties are not significant enough to deter the activity whatsoever.


No, smart gameplay should not be punished because it is successful. Certainly not for the sake of the afk, the lazy, and the bot aspirants.

PvP should not be "detered", it is a valid playstyle.

Quote:

No real risk, potentially incredible rewards. Needs fixing.



Yeah, nerf mining.

Oh wait. Twisted

"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.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3577 - 2014-09-03 01:09:07 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

Exactly right.

Since suicide gankers are risking nothing more than cheap disposable ships, they need to have some counter balances in place, as the current penalties are not significant enough to deter the activity whatsoever and it becomes ever more popular as an easy way to make isk without significant risks or penalties.

No real risk, potentially incredible rewards. Completely unfair to every other profession in EVE.

CCP Falcon wrote:
Being unprepared and putting all your eggs in one basket to make a nice juicy target for a suicide gank is the joke here, not highsec.

There are a multitude of ways to protect yourself from suicide gankers, people just automatically assume they're "safe" in highsec, then get annoyed when they lose a ship because of their own lack of spatial awareness.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3578 - 2014-09-03 01:11:38 UTC
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:
There should be some kind of status attached to dying to concord too many times that subjugates you to some penalties. Suicide gankers have it far, far too easy in EVE.


Yeah they could have like some sort of thing that could be activated by players to kill them any time, or perhaps a seperate mechanic that just lets you attack them after a certain amount of unlawful kills in highsec. I think you're on to something here.


Which is irrelevant if you are part of CODE and have -10 sec status. But if we made them spend 2 days ratting or running missions to bring their sec status up that might make them pickier about who they blow up.


Exactly right.

Since suicide gankers are risking nothing more than cheap disposable ships, they need to have some counter balances in place, as the current penalties are not significant enough to deter the activity whatsoever and it becomes ever more popular as an easy way to make isk without significant risks or penalties.

No real risk, potentially incredible rewards. Completely unfair to every other profession in EVE.


Exactly. What we also see is that the suicide gankers are funded by incredibly bored people in nullsec. Short of fixing the sov mechanics and getting null interesting again, it seems fair to say that those folks will keep pouring in isk to CODE for the sake of some highsec mayhem. That makes me thing that trying make the ganking less rewarding won't actually reduce its frequency by CODE, and protect empty ships, rather it will just deter the folks who are legitimately taking advantage of terrible decisions by haulers. That makes me prefer forcing the career gankers to grind for sec status, which would have less effect on the occasional gankers who do it for profit.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3579 - 2014-09-03 01:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:

Since suicide gankers are risking nothing more than cheap disposable ships, they need to have some counter balances in place as the current penalties are not significant enough to deter the activity whatsoever.


No, smart gameplay should not be punished because it is successful. Certainly not for the sake of the afk, the lazy, and the bot aspirants.

PvP should not be "detered", it is a valid playstyle.

Quote:

No real risk, potentially incredible rewards. Needs fixing.



Yeah, nerf mining.

Oh wait. Twisted


Just for the record (and I'm sure this will be real popular if I put it in as a suggestion) I support getting rid of mining. I don't think there should be any reward for activities that can be done AFK with essentially no effort. I think that all mining materials should drop from rats. Further, I think that mining is responsible for flooding Eve with cheap minerals, which is devaluing Eve stuff, and inflating plex. So yes, its not just suicide ganking that could use tweaking.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#3580 - 2014-09-03 01:14:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
That makes me prefer forcing the career gankers to grind for sec status, which would have less effect on the occasional gankers who do it for profit.


Ah, look, he's switched gears again.

Do tell, how do you think this unnecessary goal should be accomplished?

"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.