These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3881 - 2014-09-03 17:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Veers Belvar wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I'm just presenting a viewpoint, and a widely held one at that,


Err... I know you are stupid, and this is gonna sound crazy, but since you are claiming, try proving it maybe?


Sure - the eve forums are a great example.


Stopped there, because they're actually not. Try again. Hard evidence please.

I've also explained how I've been privy to numerous high sec corps not focused on PVP who want nothing that you just claimed they do. They want to learn. What would you even know about what people in EVE want sitting in your little one man corp not being relevant?

“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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3882 - 2014-09-03 17:38:09 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The freighters are not at the average. Some are quite profitable to blow up, and more power to CODE for that. Others were empty or nearly empty, and there was no possibility of profit, hence doing it for the tears.


Do you actually know what the word average means?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Paranoid Loyd
#3883 - 2014-09-03 17:38:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion. Plus, CODE has already lost around 390 billion isk - look very profitable yet? They often don't even bother looting the wrecks of their own gank ships, they care so little about isk (I've been able to go and loot them).


Everyone who donated isk knew they would not get it back, so yes they are very profitable, what they choose to invest their profits in is their choice.

"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!
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3884 - 2014-09-03 17:38:51 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
afkalt wrote:


Not only that, there's a strange viewpoint that things need to be done for a profit.


I think it's a 'cover lie' ie a lie present in an argument with the sole purpose of making a person with an extremest view seem outwardly reasonable. The extremist view being hidden here is the "anti-ganking' sides dislike of (and wish to see the banning of) non-consensual pvp in EVE.

They can't just say "high sec should be pvp free, non-combat ships should be immune to aggression and wars should not exist unless mutually agree'd" and such because they know how radical and wacky that is, so they say "well, if it has to be possible it should ONLY be possible under these circumstances, and see, I'm being reasonable here".

It comes in forms other than "ganking must be profitable in order to be legitimate". I've seen people say that ganking should not be possible except if the ganeker puts up as much money to gank as is being ganked (ie the only way a jump Freighter should be able to be killed is if the gankers bring 7 billion isk worth of ganking ships so ganking isn't profitable).

The two things seem different (ganking not allowed unless profitable vs ganking should not be profitable), but that are actually the exact same thing ie "ganking must have a reason acceptable to ME to be legitimate, and since I will always find it illegitimate, CCP should abolish balance it in a way I like".


This is a rather odd post -

1. I support suicide ganking - highsec would be incredibly boring without it. I just think that there should be proper incentives in place to steer people towards +EV ganks not -EV ganks.
2. I actually think its too hard to kill non-combat ships, and too easy to kill combat ships.
3. I think that a legitimate ganking business should be run at profit - yes. And no, I don't think the isk value of the gank ships need equal the isk value of the target.
4. Also, I support the current wardecc mechanics.


But everything you spew on this very thread suggests otherwise... make up your mind. You are on a soundcloud and website saying you dont support suicide ganking and you have flip flopped between supporting and not supporting ganking on this very thread.

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#3885 - 2014-09-03 17:42:11 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:


But everything you spew on this very thread suggests otherwise... make up your mind. You are on a soundcloud and website saying you dont support suicide ganking and you have flip flopped between supporting and not supporting ganking on this very thread.

im sure you could find a post in this thread where he does both, question is, could anyone be arsed finding it

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3886 - 2014-09-03 17:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.
Sure they do. Because they profit from it.

Quote:
ure - the eve forums are a great example.
So you aren't actually presenting a widely held viewpoint, then. That was just yet another lie on your part.

Quote:
You may not like it, but the fact remains that a lot of players (not me) want a much less PvP oriented experience than you do, and are infuriated by CODE's actions.
How is that a fact?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3887 - 2014-09-03 17:43:31 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:


But everything you spew on this very thread suggests otherwise... make up your mind. You are on a soundcloud and website saying you dont support suicide ganking and you have flip flopped between supporting and not supporting ganking on this very thread.


+1

Ironic that the best evidence that one is an opportunistic liar is how they can't keep their own lies straight lol.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3888 - 2014-09-03 17:45:25 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
afkalt wrote:


Not only that, there's a strange viewpoint that things need to be done for a profit.


I think it's a 'cover lie' ie a lie present in an argument with the sole purpose of making a person with an extremest view seem outwardly reasonable. The extremist view being hidden here is the "anti-ganking' sides dislike of (and wish to see the banning of) non-consensual pvp in EVE.

They can't just say "high sec should be pvp free, non-combat ships should be immune to aggression and wars should not exist unless mutually agree'd" and such because they know how radical and wacky that is, so they say "well, if it has to be possible it should ONLY be possible under these circumstances, and see, I'm being reasonable here".

It comes in forms other than "ganking must be profitable in order to be legitimate". I've seen people say that ganking should not be possible except if the ganeker puts up as much money to gank as is being ganked (ie the only way a jump Freighter should be able to be killed is if the gankers bring 7 billion isk worth of ganking ships so ganking isn't profitable).

The two things seem different (ganking not allowed unless profitable vs ganking should not be profitable), but that are actually the exact same thing ie "ganking must have a reason acceptable to ME to be legitimate, and since I will always find it illegitimate, CCP should abolish balance it in a way I like".


This is a rather odd post -

1. I support suicide ganking - highsec would be incredibly boring without it. I just think that there should be proper incentives in place to steer people towards +EV ganks not -EV ganks.
2. I actually think its too hard to kill non-combat ships, and too easy to kill combat ships.
3. I think that a legitimate ganking business should be run at profit - yes. And no, I don't think the isk value of the gank ships need equal the isk value of the target.
4. Also, I support the current wardecc mechanics.


But everything you spew on this very thread suggests otherwise... make up your mind. You are on a soundcloud and website saying you dont support suicide ganking and you have flip flopped between supporting and not supporting ganking on this very thread.


I support the concept of suicide ganking, when used appropriately, specifically to punish poor decision making in highsec. I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them, and I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up, and then humiliate them on minerbumping.com (multiple people have told me they are considering quitting Eve after being mocked on the website).
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3889 - 2014-09-03 17:46:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.
Sure they do. Because they profit from it.

Quote:
ure - the eve forums are a great example.
So you aren't actually presenting a widely held viewpoint, then. That was just yet another lie on your part.

Quote:
You may not like it, but the fact remains that a lot of players (not me) want a much less PvP oriented experience than you do, and are infuriated by CODE's actions.
How is that a fact?


And, as shown, the revenue is less than the cost, making it a loss, not a profit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3890 - 2014-09-03 17:47:32 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And, as shown
You haven't shown anything.
Prove your claim, and stop lying.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3891 - 2014-09-03 17:50:57 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


I support the concept of suicide ganking, when used appropriately, specifically to punish poor decision making in highsec. I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them, and I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up, and then humiliate them on minerbumping.com (multiple people have told me they are considering quitting Eve after being mocked on the website).



There it is again, that underlying personal prejudice along with an inability to understand that 'I don't like it' doesn't equal 'this is wrong'.

As for people considering quiting? Good. If people doing things that are lawful under the EULA (meaning acceptable to the owners/makers of the game: CCP) can make someone consider leaving, they shouldn't have been playing this game in the 1st place.

There are dozens of other games that aren't as 'liberal' about in-game behavior as CCP is and any of those games would be a better fit for such people. it would be good for them because they'd be happier and good for us because we'd not suffer hearing their complaints.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3892 - 2014-09-03 17:52:50 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.


Okay Veers you have avoided my point on this topic.

Veers, Veers, Veers, Veers.

I don't care if I make a profit! I want to blow stuff up and I love PVP! Eve is a game where I can do that. Is it bad I don't make a profit and just play the game to have fun???
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3893 - 2014-09-03 17:54:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
I support the concept of suicide ganking
Just one thing: you're lying. We know this because you have gone on the record saying you don't support it. Since you now go on to make conditions, you still don't support it. So what you meant to say here was “I don't support suicide ganking, in concept or otherwise”.

Quote:
I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them
This is a lie. We know this because of the newbie griefing you have openly engage in on these forums.
What you meant to say was “I like to screw people over and hurt them in the long term.”

Quote:
I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up
This is a lie. There is far more to CODE's ganking that purely to rile people up.
What you meant to say is “I oppose suicide ganking of all types, especially if it is profitable and fun, like CODE's”.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3894 - 2014-09-03 17:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Veers Belvar wrote:
I support the concept of suicide ganking, when used appropriately, specifically to punish poor decision making in highsec.
Flying a freighter packed full of goodies or not, through Uedama or Nairja when CODE. and friends are out ganking freighters there IS poor decision making.

Quote:
I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them
How? By giving them terrible advice? I feel sorry for any newbies, you mentioned you liked to help newbies in another post, or any other players that you try to help.

Quote:
and I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up and then humiliate them on minerbumping.com
Once again this is demonstrably wrong.

Quote:
(multiple people have told me they are considering quitting Eve after being mocked on the website).
Good, Eve isn't for everyone.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3895 - 2014-09-03 17:59:08 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.


Okay Veers you have avoided my point on this topic.

Veers, Veers, Veers, Veers.

I don't care if I make a profit! I want to blow stuff up and I love PVP! Eve is a game where I can do that. Is it bad I don't make a profit and just play the game to have fun???


Well, there was a threshold question of if CODE is making a profit (I say no, others say yes). Once that is dealt with, then you would say ok, so its not a business, its just a tear creation program, is that legitimate?

And like you, I think the answer is "yes," that's legit. EvE is not sim city, you are allowed to do -EV things for fun. The question then becomes though, has CCP set up the game in optimal fashion, considering what CODE is doing, and are any changes warranted? To the extent that CODE is bleeding isk just to make people cry and humiliate them on minerbumping.com, is that the kind of conduct that CCP sees as socially valuable and wants to incentivize? And if not, are there ways to tweak the mechanics so that gankers focus more on +EV targets, and less on -EV targets to just harvest tears? For example, is it reasonable that people with -10 sec status can continue their spree of ganking in highsec, with no other contributions to the game in between to raise their security status?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#3896 - 2014-09-03 17:59:31 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's space for us all in New Eden.


No, CCP Falcon, there is not.

There is no place for those who want to kill miners in high sec with no CONCORD intervention.
There is no place for those who want to mine AFK without worry of being attacked.
There is no place for those who want to join a corp with no worry of war decs.
There is no place for those who want to attack and destroy war targets who refuse to undock, or even log in.
There is no place for those who want to war dec NPC corps, or players in said corps.
There is no place for those who want to have avatar game play.
There is no place for those who want to haul without worry of being attacked.

I could go on, but you get my point.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3897 - 2014-09-03 18:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Veers Belvar wrote:
Well, there was a threshold question of if CODE is making a profit (I say no, others say yes).
…and you have no proof for you stance.

Quote:
Once that is dealt with, then you would say ok, so its not a business, its just a tear creation program, is that legitimate?
Yes. That's why, even if what you said is true (but again, you can't prove it), it is irrelevant.

Quote:
The question then becomes though, has CCP set up the game in optimal fashion
Yes. They've said so on multiple occasions. You can stop asking because you have been given the answer so many times now that asking it again is itself wilfully ignorant.

Quote:
To the extent that CODE is bleeding isk just to make people cry and humiliate them on minerbumping.com, is that the kind of conduct that CCP sees as socially valuable and wants to incentivize?
So to zero extent then. And yes, that is a kind of conduct that is being explicitly allowed and marketed by CCP.

Quote:
For example, is it reasonable that people with -10 sec status can continue their spree of ganking in highsec, with no other contributions to the game in between to raise their security status?
Very obviously yes. Otherwise, they would not have been allowed to to so and CCP would not have put in the effort to make sure that this can happen. If you had actually bothered to listen to what the devs say rather than ignorantly asking questions that have already been answered long before you asked them, you would know that they have stated that it is more effort in letting those players work they do now than it would be to stop them… and guess what? They put that effort in, because that is how it is supposed to work.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3898 - 2014-09-03 18:02:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I support the concept of suicide ganking
Just one thing: you're lying. We know this because you have gone on the record saying you don't support it. Since you now go on to make conditions, you still don't support it. So what you meant to say here was “I don't support suicide ganking, in concept or otherwise”.

Quote:
I personally do not do it, because I like to help people, not hurt them
This is a lie. We know this because of the newbie griefing you have openly engage in on these forums.
What you meant to say was “I like to screw people over and hurt them in the long term.”

Quote:
I oppose the type of suicide ganking that CODE is doing, which is purely to rile people up
This is a lie. There is far more to CODE's ganking that purely to rile people up.
What you meant to say is “I oppose suicide ganking of all types, especially if it is profitable and fun, like CODE's”.


Lolz....you do so prove entertainment here :)

1. I said no such thing. I'm a big fan of +EV suicide ganking, I think it keeps highsec interesting. I don't unconditionally support all suicide ganking true, but I support it at certain times and places. I'm a big fan of ships with cargo value >> hull value + mod value getting xploded and looted. I'm a big fan of 20 bil officer fit L4 ships getting xloded and looted, etc... So your statement is...well....false.

2. I help new players, run missions with them, give anti ganking advice, explain of the game. I'm actually quite confident that I am far better at this game than you are. And certainly I didn't grief new players by being the #4 support of CODE last month during the venture killing contest.

3. Check their website, its all about tears. Check their treasury, its all about losing isk.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3899 - 2014-09-03 18:03:53 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

No, but people who want to make a profit don't intentionally blow up empty ships in an -EV fashion.


Okay Veers you have avoided my point on this topic.

Veers, Veers, Veers, Veers.

I don't care if I make a profit! I want to blow stuff up and I love PVP! Eve is a game where I can do that. Is it bad I don't make a profit and just play the game to have fun???


Well, there was a threshold question of if CODE is making a profit (I say no, others say yes). Once that is dealt with, then you would say ok, so its not a business, its just a tear creation program, is that legitimate?

And like you, I think the answer is "yes," that's legit. EvE is not sim city, you are allowed to do -EV things for fun. The question then becomes though, has CCP set up the game in optimal fashion, considering what CODE is doing, and are any changes warranted? To the extent that CODE is bleeding isk just to make people cry and humiliate them on minerbumping.com, is that the kind of conduct that CCP sees as socially valuable and wants to incentivize? And if not, are there ways to tweak the mechanics so that gankers focus more on +EV targets, and less on -EV targets to just harvest tears? For example, is it reasonable that people with -10 sec status can continue their spree of ganking in highsec, with no other contributions to the game in between to raise their security status?


I don't care about tears... I want to blow things up. I'm not a Carebear so I don't want to raise my sec status.

The RP tears are cute if you're into that kind of thing. If you're shedding RL tears over pixels PLEASE STEP BACK FROM THE GAME. This is a warning sign that you have a problem.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#3900 - 2014-09-03 18:03:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And, as shown, the revenue is less than the cost, making it a loss, not a profit.

You don't have the numbers, you just assume the values that best fit to your arguments and sell them as facts.

As I have explained before, the ganking of empty Freighters has the not so obvious (and maybe originally unintended) purpose of keeping the people in the fleet interested. If you only gank valuable targets and let them wait for hours they will log of and not join the next time, because it is simply boring. Since this is a game and most people play for fun in their rare free time you have to consider this things.

Evil RatKid