These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War on Gankers

First post
Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#501 - 2015-01-09 01:34:49 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I've suggested in the past one such improvement is to make it so a killright remains until that killright has been used enough times to cause equal isk loss to the ganker or a timer (longer than currently, say 90 days). So you kill a 1b isk ship, and the killright goes public, it will remain publicly available so until you've lost 1b to that killright or 90 days pass.
Nothing would change.

A 90 day timer will be just as ineffective as the current 30 day timer, primarily because most people are ignorant of the way that kill rights work or just plain can't be arsed to exact retribution.

I used to gank on another character, I spent about 6 months doing so. I kept my sec status above -5 by ratting in highsec, nobody shot at me despite having 10 or more kill rights available on my head on occasion.

Changes to game mechanics will never be able to fix stupidity, ignorance and laziness, education also appears to be failing to combat them.
You realise that the 90 day timer is only part of the suggestion, right? Many people see and use killrights, the problem is that if you set the price low or free, the ganker just get them off with an alt, and if you set them too high, nobody is willing to use them. At least if they stayed and could be repeatedly used until the same amount of damage had been done, a free killright would not be able to be removed. Since that's promoting more conflict in highsec, it should definitely be one you guys are on board with. Or is it only fun when you're the aggressor?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#502 - 2015-01-09 01:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I've suggested in the past one such improvement is to make it so a killright remains until that killright has been used enough times to cause equal isk loss to the ganker or a timer (longer than currently, say 90 days). So you kill a 1b isk ship, and the killright goes public, it will remain publicly available so until you've lost 1b to that killright or 90 days pass.
Nothing would change.

A 90 day timer will be just as ineffective as the current 30 day timer, primarily because most people are ignorant of the way that kill rights work or just plain can't be arsed to exact retribution.

I used to gank on another character, I spent about 6 months doing so. I kept my sec status above -5 by ratting in highsec, nobody shot at me despite having 10 or more kill rights available on my head on occasion.

Changes to game mechanics will never be able to fix stupidity, ignorance and laziness, education also appears to be failing to combat them.
You realise that the 90 day timer is only part of the suggestion, right? Many people see and use killrights, the problem is that if you set the price low or free, the ganker just get them off with an alt, and if you set them too high, nobody is willing to use them. At least if they stayed and could be repeatedly used until the same amount of damage had been done, a free killright would not be able to be removed. Since that's promoting more conflict in highsec, it should definitely be one you guys are on board with. Or is it only fun when you're the aggressor?
Indefinite lifetime of a kill right until certain conditions are met to negate it would make no difference at all if people aren't willing to act upon it. The problem isn't with the mechanics or the tools provided by CCP, it's with the people who don't know how to use them and those who do know how, but refuse to use them.

I'm all for promoting conflict, if people had tried to engage me when I was managing my sec status they would have met with a good fight and some friendly banter in local. I was aware that I had kill rights available on me and fitted my ships appropriately with buffer and tackle.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#503 - 2015-01-09 01:48:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you are engaging in PvP purposely to harvest tears (like most of code) then yes, you are griefing. That's what griefing is.


Intent is not relevant. A legitimate in game action is a legitimate in game action, no matter what you may claim someone's motivations are.

"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.

ISD Supogo
ISD BH
ISD Alliance
#504 - 2015-01-09 01:59:21 UTC
Removed a personal attack post and those quoting it.

Quote:

Forum rules

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 conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

ISD BH Supogo

Bughunter

Equipment Certification and Anomaly Investigations Division (ECAID)

Interstellar Services Department

Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#505 - 2015-01-09 03:24:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you are engaging in PvP purposely to harvest tears (like most of code) then yes, you are griefing. That's what griefing is.


Intent is not relevant. A legitimate in game action is a legitimate in game action, no matter what you may claim someone's motivations are.

Intent is the only thing that's relevant in defining griefing. You are confusing yourself. Griefing not being enforceable when it comes to legitimate in game actions, does not make it not griefing.
Vapor Ventrillian
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#506 - 2015-01-09 04:10:30 UTC
You have valued points and o7 to you maam

As the Projects Founder I seek to bring neutrality to this glorious chunk of Highsec

The Code. are victims of their own success unfortunately and have lost their way, so please seek to educate them before you move to eradicate them

The Evil Overlord of Scope, self elected as all good overlords should be

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#507 - 2015-01-09 04:13:17 UTC
Steppa Musana wrote:

Intent is the only thing that's relevant in defining griefing.


No, that would be CCP's long standing rules on the matter. Rules which, interestingly enough, have been repeatedly stated to not include ganking.


Quote:
Griefing not being enforceable when it comes to legitimate in game actions, does not make it not griefing.


It literally does.

"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.

Ramcath
Boulder Shoulders Industries
#508 - 2015-01-09 06:13:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Steppa Musana wrote:

Intent is the only thing that's relevant in defining griefing.


No, that would be CCP's long standing rules on the matter. Rules which, interestingly enough, have been repeatedly stated to not include ganking.


Quote:
Griefing not being enforceable when it comes to legitimate in game actions, does not make it not griefing.


It literally does.



I think you may need to 'literally' follow this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#509 - 2015-01-09 08:27:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
If you are engaging in PvP purposely to harvest tears (like most of code) then yes, you are griefing. That's what griefing is.
Intent is not relevant. A legitimate in game action is a legitimate in game action, no matter what you may claim someone's motivations are.
Intent is very important as it changes the way you perform that task. When I gank, I fly in, gank fly out. I rarely have anyone hurling insults at me for it. When you troll, insult, gank, troll, humiliate, it's very much griefing. In both side you are ganking, but in one you are ganking to gank, in the other you are ganking to upset the player.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#510 - 2015-01-09 09:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Ramcath wrote:

The hard truth is Erotica 1 was banned, even though there are countless people who didn't think he should or that what he did wasn't a bannable offense. At the end of the day, all Lucas and myself, and many others are trying to say is that if certain mechanics aren't reviewed and possibly tweaked, then CCP may make changes that are over the top. Here you have two pilots who are specifically saying that ganking is a part of Eve, and if it's not addressed correctly then who can possibly know what CCP will do if enough pilots get CCP to believe that all ganking is 'griefing'.

It's more or less a shame that an open dialogue isn't possible simply because of Eve forum ganker trolls... but such is the world of the ganker. "Hey... nothing bad can happen, CCP would never do anything to disrupt my ability gank in hi-sec!" If that's your belief then fine, but be sure to ask Erotica 1 how he feels today, and my favorite part of Erotica 1's defense was that (paraphrase) "If what I was doing was wrong then CCP should've told me."

That's the point, if and when CCP decides to act they're going to do it on their terms, and the results can be ones that are avoided. Now go ahead... the ganker trolls are going to start bringing up Erotica 1 and say it has no bearing, but you're wrong. That's an admitted different level and degree of 'griefing', but at the core it's still considered 'griefing', and if CCP makes any type of decision on ganking as griefing then you could've been part of the discussion to prevent it. I doubt that will happen and instead we get to see the trolls come out. Such a shame...

Your view, that CCP will review ganking mechanics and make changes that are "over the top" is disingenuous and frankly just wishful thinking on your part. CCP Falcon, the lead community manager who is the man responsible for communicating with the playerbase, recently made it clear that freighter ganking is suppose to be in the game. The simple act of blowing up a freighter in highsec is not "griefing", it is ganking and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning. This will never be removed from the game unless CCP does a dramatic about-face about the structure of the game, and if this happens freighter ganking will be the least of our problems.

If in the future freighters are exploding too much, they will be re-balanced just like every ship as been done countless times before. Perhaps new modules will be added to make them safer, or base stats changed to improve their ability to tank or escape, but they will be not given a special pass from PvP or otherwise made invulnerable. Ships need to be at risk in the sandbox. Only CCP has the all data, but freighter ganking is incredibly rare - from the killboard and the number of freighters in space there must be a less than 1 in 5000 chance of a freighter dying per trip in highsec (granted this chance can vary greatly on where and what you carry). If CCP thinks that number is getting too high they will buff them - there is no need for scaremongering about the very future of ganking which you seem so concerned for.

Now, you also seem to be conflating "griefing" and ganking by raising Erotica 1 for some reason. Erotica 1 was a famous ISK doubler who ran a scam which turned into a controversy over "real-life harassment" for reasons that have been well discussed. This whole affair was unreleated to ganking in any way, except for the tangential connection that Erotica 1 was a supporter of the New Order of Highsec. Now regardless if you think Erotica 1's behaviour constitutes "real-life harrassment" or "griefing" it certainly shows that CCP is willing to act if they feel that something has crossed the line.

Now, the ganking and bumping activities of the New Order have been displayed for the world to see for well over two years now on minerbumping.com, one of the top Eve blogs by readership. Further, there have been no reports of gankers, New Order or otherwise, being banned for these ganking and bumping activities that I know of. CCP is well aware of the activities of the New Order both through these forums and minerbumping, as well as the countless petitions they must get from miners and haulers upset over their losses. Therefore, we can only conclude that the ganking activities of the New Order, including the ganking of freighters, are completely within the rules of the game.

But you want to have a conversation. Ok, let's first see if we can separate ganking from "griefing" in your mind. Is a freighter gank ever not "griefing"? If so, what are the conditions in which you think ganking a freighter is ok?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#511 - 2015-01-09 10:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ramcath wrote:
I am wondering what the ganker response to allowing freighters to have drones is...

Discuss...
Sure. It will make no difference. We'll just add it to the 'one more nerf' list.

Now please respond to my reply, to your earlier posts.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#512 - 2015-01-09 10:39:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
CCP Falcon, the lead community manager who is the man responsible for communicating with the playerbase, recently made it clear that freighter ganking is suppose to be in the game.
I love how you guys always link back to Falcon, and generally the same thread, as if we're supposed to read that and assume his word is gospel. He's also supported awoxing in the past, and yet that's on it's way out. At the end of the day he will say whatever is current. If the rules change, so will what he says. CCP will eventually look at everything, and if they decide that code trolling and griefing people while they gank, then publicly humiliating them isn't what they want, then the rules will change, and so will Falcon's statments.

Black Pedro wrote:
The simple act of blowing up a freighter in highsec is not "greifing", it is ganking and has been an integral part of the game from the beginning. This will never be removed from the game unless CCP does a dramatic about-face about the structure of the game, and if this happens freighter ganking will be the least of our problems.
No it's not, but the way code generally gank isn't restricted to just blowing up a ship. They insult and troll and provoke the gankee into a response so they can "harvest tears" for you guys to laugh about. That's really not good publicity for the game when people see that kind of behaviour. Eventually CCP will be looking to pull in more players because attrition is fast becoming a problem, and antisocial (not asocial like a miner who plays alone) behaviour will need to be looked at.

Black Pedro wrote:
Now, you also seem to be conflating "griefing" and ganking by raising Erotica 1 for some reason. Erotica 1 was a famous ISK doubler who ran a scam which turned into a controversy over "real-life harassment" for reasons that have been well discussed. This whole affair was unreleated to ganking in anyway, except for the tangential connection that Erotica 1 was a supporter of the New Order of Highsec. Now regardless if you think of Erotica 1 behaviour constitutes "real-life harrassment" or "griefing" it certainly shows that CCP is willing to act if they feel that something has crossed the line.
Many of the other people involved in that also had involvement in code. It's not difficult to draw parallel between that and code. The basic principal is the same. Find a target, use a combination of in-game mechanics and well placed trolling and insults to drive the target to rage/tears, then record that to laugh about and share with your friends.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#513 - 2015-01-09 10:41:26 UTC
Omar Alharazaad wrote:
Also. Lucas argues for the sake of arguing. Engaging him means he wins regardless.
Funny to watch the pattern though.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#514 - 2015-01-09 11:08:19 UTC
For some reason I keep reading "The war on Wankers" here...... no joke Big smile

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#515 - 2015-01-09 11:24:00 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
For some reason I keep reading "The war on Wankers" here...... no joke Big smile


Plenty of those in this thread Tora Twisted
I jest, there are some whiners and weeners to be found if you look closely.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Velicitia
XS Tech
#516 - 2015-01-09 11:33:55 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ramcath wrote:
I am wondering what the ganker response to allowing freighters to have drones is...

Discuss...
Sure. It will make no difference. We'll just add it to the 'one more nerf' list.

Now please respond to my reply, to your earlier posts.


is it the one more nerf list, or the "bring one more friend" list?

I can never keep them straight...

Although, TBH, with a max locked targets of '0' ... drones aren't gonna help much. Blink

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#517 - 2015-01-09 11:46:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald : Are you my alt or just like minded ? Big smile

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#518 - 2015-01-09 12:12:13 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald : Are you my alt or just like minded ? Big smile


I've actually been accused of being you before.

Or is that a job offer?

"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.

Velicitia
XS Tech
#519 - 2015-01-09 12:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Lucas Kell wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
CCP Falcon, the lead community manager who is the man responsible for communicating with the playerbase, recently made it clear that freighter ganking is suppose to be in the game.
I love how you guys always link back to Falcon, and generally the same thread, as if we're supposed to read that and assume his word is gospel. He's also supported awoxing in the past, and yet that's on it's way out. At the end of the day he will say whatever is current. If the rules change, so will what he says. CCP will eventually look at everything, and if they decide that code trolling and griefing people while they gank, then publicly humiliating them isn't what they want, then the rules will change, and so will Falcon's statments.



Falcon, or any of the devs/GMs, IS giving you CCP's official stance on whatever matter he is speaking about (except in cases where he explicitly says "guys, this is my take on it" -- as he did elsewhere in that same thread).

Removing awoxing is probably a bad move (yes, yes, "think of the children"), as it sets CCP up (again) for the carebears asking for "just one more nerf".

"Lucas Kell" wrote:
No it's not, but the way code generally gank isn't restricted to just blowing up a ship. They insult and troll and provoke the gankee into a response so they can "harvest tears" for you guys to laugh about. That's really not good publicity for the game when people see that kind of behaviour. Eventually CCP will be looking to pull in more players because attrition is fast becoming a problem, and antisocial (not asocial like a miner who plays alone) behaviour will need to be looked at.


However, the "antisocial" behaviour that CODE (et. al.) engage in is, as of current rulings, not "griefing".

Yes, attrition is something that needs to be dealt with ... but the bigger problem is everyone and their brother not "getting EVE".

Hell, I just got off a dec with a large-ish "Indy and some PvP because we wanna go to wormholes at some point" corp ... guess what -- me, all by my lonesome solo self was called a greifer (etc.) by them for not "letting them play the way they wanted" (sorry guys, this isn't Hello Kitty online). I could've squashed them, and always had T2 on the field ... but that would accomplish nothing, except dampen the spirits of the few "these guys will go far" newbros that the corp had attracted ... so I kept things roughly level and stuck to mid-size hulls (**** a KB, I wanna have fun ... who cares if I lose stuff) -- they are the ones who escalated and brought out the T2 and T3 hulls, and then wondered why I turned to hunting their soft underbelly (i.e. the missioners and miners who flew solo).

If the majority of that corp's players were pushed out of eve -- well, it's unfortunate that they couldn't stomach the game, but there are other games out there. If everyone liked the same thing, we'd still be playing Pong or Mario Brothers.

Thing is, every carebear miner could be pushed outta the game and it would still continue. Yeah, prices would spike for a while, and then guys like me (who have mined, but have moved on) will either

1. Obtain permit (because 10m to keep the competition down is worth it) OR
2. Not obtain permit (because "I can avoid them") OR
3. Move to low/null/w-space

and get back into the (vastly) more profitable profession of obtaining the raw materials needed to wage war.


(Edit - yeah guys, I really do know how to link pages)

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Black Pedro
Mine.
#520 - 2015-01-09 13:04:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Velicitia wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
CCP Falcon, the lead community manager who is the man responsible for communicating with the playerbase, recently made it clear that freighter ganking is suppose to be in the game.
I love how you guys always link back to Falcon, and generally the same thread, as if we're supposed to read that and assume his word is gospel. He's also supported awoxing in the past, and yet that's on it's way out. At the end of the day he will say whatever is current. If the rules change, so will what he says. CCP will eventually look at everything, and if they decide that code trolling and griefing people while they gank, then publicly humiliating them isn't what they want, then the rules will change, and so will Falcon's statments.



Falcon, or any of the devs/GMs, IS giving you CCP's official stance on whatever matter he is speaking about (except in cases where he explicitly says "guys, this is my take on it" -- as he did elsewhere in that same thread).

This. CCP Falcon's primary job is to communicate CCP's view to the playerbase. His words are implicitly that of the company as community manager, and should be taken as gospel unless he says otherwise, or is contradicted by the few higher-ups like CCP Seagull.

Sure, things can change in the future, and you can hold out hope that CCP will move the game in the direction you prefer Lucas, but you have to play the game according the actual, current rules, not how you think they might be in the future. All present statements, rulings from CCP indicate that ganking, even the New Order "we own highsec" variety, is perfectly acceptable, as is posting the bad behaviour of the victims on a website. All evidence points to CCP being fully aware of the situation and willing to act if a player crosses a line (see: Erotica 1) so therefore we have to believe that how the New Order plays the game is within CCP's rules. Not accepting that reality and using the "but it will eventually change because it must, right?" argument makes your position look quite weak.

And to be clear I might not see any reply to this from you Lucas as I have chosen to hide your posts on the forum for a while now. I find that my forum experience is far more worthwhile without being exposed to your continual rebuttals to minutia that stems either from an inability to accept that your position may not be entirely correct or perhaps just an unhealthy need to always reply to everything in contrary fashion. It is ok to let an issue drop once in a while even if you still think the other person is wrong.