These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Putting the screwes to highsec gankers

First post
Author
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#81 - 2015-01-28 21:44:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
There should be some balance when it comes to the ganking profession. Players should have a means to screw with your money making efforts. The problem with the ganking profession is that any risks you would impose on gankers are instantly mitigated by the time said ganker needs to be exposed to said risks. I'd support something along the lines of security status gradually removing the gankers ability to dock and disappear after logoff relative to the sec status of the system


We adapt by using orcas with pre fitted cats and you start asking for just one more nerf.


The only other 'nerf' I'd have in mind is possibly providing a more structured monetary incentive for killing gankers.

But I mean, I can't image you find it surprising ppl would want to see ganking nerfed. Mechanics are put in place to try to penalize gankers / balance ganking, then poor implemention allows for these penalties to remain mostly circumvented.

im curious if hypothectically, would you believe there would be justification to implement mechanics that made gankers more susceptible to their risks, provided it was possible?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#82 - 2015-01-28 21:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....

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

chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#83 - 2015-01-28 22:19:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short
Iain Cariaba
#84 - 2015-01-28 22:30:11 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short

Yet their time spent in boredom trying to aquire targets is much greater that any of your provided exampes.

I'm curious, what is the average isk/hr made on a typical miner gank and a typical freighter gank once you factor in all the man hours to find the targets and arrange the gank?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#85 - 2015-01-28 22:49:40 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short
A risk is still a risk, even if it's a known and accepted one. Why is it some players find that difficult? Some simply don't want risk. Let's take your freighter point, regarding a risk at every jump. I would say their exposure when escorted with a webber, is far less and it's highly unlikely they'll be exposed to any.

As far as time exposed is concerned, it's still exposer and makes them susceptible. But is you want more, how about a change to facpo? I see no mention of that risk from you, but yet you complain of exposer.

Oh and according to that CCP's Dr of economics, miner ganking reached an all time low in 2012 and I'm sure mining ships have been buffed since then.

You're not really interested in susceptibility, you just want one more nerf. Will it be balanced then?

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

chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#86 - 2015-01-28 23:20:21 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Yet their time spent in boredom trying to aquire targets is much greater that any of your provided exampes.

I'm curious, what is the average isk/hr made on a typical miner gank and a typical freighter gank once you factor in all the man hours to find the targets and arrange the gank?

are you really trying to argue that ganking is balanced with boredom....

Mag's wrote:

As far as time exposed is concerned, it's still exposer and makes them susceptible. But is you want more, how about a change to facpo? I see no mention of that risk from you, but yet you complain of exposer.

Let's reverse the scenario for a moment and i think we might understand eachother a little better. Assume that mining ships became invulnerable when they entered belts, or say you werent allowed to enter an explorer's plex. a missioner's mission always spawned in the same system and you werent allow to enter the mission area, or say concord response time was always instant, etc. These individuals would still have some exposure, but would the amount of time they are exposed really be sufficient? IMO, that answer is no, because if the window of opportunity to gank these individuals is so low that gankers barely have a chance to gank, it isnt really in the spirit of Eve, and although these professions would still have the same risks, they would be substantially less susceptible to them.

Likewise, white knights and those seeking revenge should have a more reasonable window of opportunity to ruin a ganker's operations.

Mag's wrote:

Oh and according to that CCP's Dr of economics, miner ganking reached an all time low in 2012 and I'm sure mining ships have been buffed since then.

Any numbers on the number of ganking operations that took losses due to active 3rd party intervention?

Mag's wrote:

You're not really interested in susceptibility, you just want one more nerf. Will it be balanced then?


susceptibility is my interest. As a profession in eve, ganking should be subject to adequate exposure. Risk v Reward. The risk part means very little if the time spent being susceptible to it is too small.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2015-01-28 23:34:35 UTC
Ahh, here we go again.

*clears throat*

This idea is bad m'kay. "Gankers", as you call them, will not be affected at all by this, as they already have security statuses of -10. They will just use an alt flying an orca or bowhead to store ships in space for them. M'kay.

It will only affect people who go into lowsec to pvp but otherwise live in highsec.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Mag's
Azn Empire
#88 - 2015-01-28 23:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:

As far as time exposed is concerned, it's still exposer and makes them susceptible. But is you want more, how about a change to facpo? I see no mention of that risk from you, but yet you complain of exposer.

Let's reverse the scenario for a moment and i think we might understand eachother a little better. Assume that mining ships became invulnerable when they entered belts, or say you werent allowed to enter an explorer's plex. a missioner's mission always spawned in the same system and you werent allow to enter the mission area, or say concord response time was always instant, etc. These individuals would still have some exposure, but would the amount of time they are exposed really be sufficient? IMO, that answer is no, because if the window of opportunity to gank these individuals is so low that gankers barely have a chance to gank, it isnt really in the spirit of Eve, and although these professions would still have the same risks, they would be substantially less susceptible to them.

Likewise, white knights and those seeking revenge should have a more reasonable window of opportunity to ruin a ganker's operations.

Mag's wrote:

Oh and according to that CCP's Dr of economics, miner ganking reached an all time low in 2012 and I'm sure mining ships have been buffed since then.

Any numbers on the number of ganking operations that took losses due to active 3rd party intervention?

Mag's wrote:

You're not really interested in susceptibility, you just want one more nerf. Will it be balanced then?


susceptibility is my interest. As a profession in eve, ganking should be subject to adequate exposure. Risk v Reward. The risk part means very little if the time spent being susceptible to it is too small.
One of the main reasons for a small exposure time, is facpo. It's one of those risks you are wanting more of. The trouble is, it's detrimental to player interaction. That's hardly the fault of the ganker.

I don't have numbers, but in C&P there is a thread from the AG crowd. They are starting to have some success.

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

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#89 - 2015-01-29 00:26:22 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short



While small, that window is still effective.

An analogy based on me and why I don't do piracy. Never ganked either but same principles apply really.


I tried low sec piracy. As nabbing people in belts (away from gate guns) was not happening, it was take my chances on payout from gate guns deaths. this rarely worked out for me. The grand tales of booty (the classical meaning of the word ofc lol) laden treasure ships....I never got those fairy tale endings. Why I went 0.0 tbh....I still died in pvp, but got the ratting isk to make my money to cover and then some.


Why I don't gank either. I have known many hit anything that moved in empire and all they got for their trouble was a fast pass to run loops in low sec to fix sec status. No good payouts and while they got some km's....many found when trying to join a decent pvp corp they were worthless.

As the pvp corps were looking for more than just bear kills. 10 exhumer kills meant nothing to them...they wanted kills against able pvp opponents or at least some skill seen in losses. Sometimes in pvp you will lose a fight. You can get points if you put up a good fight and die well to say one of the best pilots in say tuskers. Vice diaf like an idiot with crap fit and poor flying skills.

Long story short...the random chance of payout on ganks keeps me from doing it. Hell...even in low sec lol. I like getting guaranteed paychecks. Especially since I know many who have run low sec loops in bombers to fix sec status. A few had the big payouts to comfort them as they hit 1 bs per system every 15 minutes for days on end. Most...suffered the loops runs or went screw this crap, joined the blob and ratted to death to fix and avoid massive sec hits there after.


Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#90 - 2015-01-29 00:28:37 UTC
The real risk in ganking is the threat of finding a carebear who has actually fitted tank on their ship and is prepared and aware. That **** is dangerous as hell, but fortunately very very rare.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#91 - 2015-01-29 03:15:16 UTC
Mag's wrote:
A risk is still a risk, even if it's a known and accepted one.

Depending on how you choose to define risk this may or may not be true.

To take a risk implies that you are doing something that "may" cause you harm or a loss in some way. The word "may" is the important one here as it indicates that there is a chance that you "may not" be harmed or suffer a loss. Since you are guaranteed to loose your ship in a gank there simply is no risk involved in that aspect it is simply a fact.

There are many other risk that a ganker faces but losing his/her ship is not one of them.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#92 - 2015-01-29 07:11:46 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Mag's wrote:
A risk is still a risk, even if it's a known and accepted one.

Depending on how you choose to define risk this may or may not be true.

To take a risk implies that you are doing something that "may" cause you harm or a loss in some way. The word "may" is the important one here as it indicates that there is a chance that you "may not" be harmed or suffer a loss. Since you are guaranteed to loose your ship in a gank there simply is no risk involved in that aspect it is simply a fact.

There are many other risk that a ganker faces but losing his/her ship is not one of them.

This is just semantics but undocking in that ship while -10 is still a risk. I have lost many a ship en route to a gank to white knights, opportunists or to the faction police. I agree that once you start the gank it probably is more of a "cost", but that is a pretty meaningless distinction.

But this really isn't the point. Gankers have accepted both the risks and the cost/consequences of their actions and both are significant. To mitigate these downsides, especially the faction police, they are forced to fly small ships and hide in the station most of the time. This isn't ideal from a player interaction standpoint, but does limit the amount of damage they can do. Players cannot both argue for increased NPC-based restrictions for gankers, and that gankers don't risk enough as the latter is a direct result of the former.

Either gankers should be viewed as thugs in a dark alley who pop out from time-to-time and commit a petty crime, or actual villains that can be battled by the good folk of highsec. What we have now is more like the first case where just like the random mugger, there are precautions you can take to protect yourself, or even attack in that moment in self defense, but one they get your wallet and disappear into the shadows there is not much you can do. Alternatively, the faction police could be relaxed/removed, gankers allowed to move more freely and fly real PvP ships, and treat the situation more like faction warfare where there a two sides battling in a more traditional PvP way.

Personally, I am fine with the "mugger paradigm". Gankers serve a useful role forcing fitting choices (yield vs. tank) and attentiveness on players in highsec which is why CCP put suicide ganking and highsec criminals in the game in the first place. The amount of damage they do overall is low, and completely avoidable by those that spend the effort to protect themselves as it should be. In this, gankers are more like a player-enforced game mechanic rather than a profession and thus can't really be balanced like other professions - nor should that be tried as they actually do not add resources or ISK to the economy.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2015-01-29 08:15:51 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
There should be some balance when it comes to the ganking profession. Players should have a means to screw with your money making efforts. The problem with the ganking profession is that any risks you would impose on gankers are instantly mitigated by the time said ganker needs to be exposed to said risks. I'd support something along the lines of security status gradually removing the gankers ability to dock and disappear after logoff relative to the sec status of the system


We adapt by using orcas with pre fitted cats and you start asking for just one more nerf.


The only other 'nerf' I'd have in mind is possibly providing a more structured monetary incentive for killing gankers.

But I mean, I can't image you find it surprising ppl would want to see ganking nerfed. Mechanics are put in place to try to penalize gankers / balance ganking, then poor implemention allows for these penalties to remain mostly circumvented.

im curious if hypothectically, would you believe there would be justification to implement mechanics that made gankers more susceptible to their risks, provided it was possible?


There are already too many risks and punishments. So long as ganking is possible at all we will see highsec bears whining about ganking. No more nerfs are needed.
Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2015-01-30 05:12:28 UTC
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:
What the hell? Highsec risk has been lowered and lowered and lowered countless times already to an extent where mission runners and miners have very little incentive to move to Lowsec or Nullsec at all.

Highsec needs to either be MORE dangerous, or have its content, size and rewards nerfed HARD!


Why you need a more dangerous highsec ? Ingame you have a lot of places you can make your pew pew (wh, nullsec, lowsec,...) .

I don't understand the fun you have to destroy a ship with no def in highsec. And generaly you will destroy newbie ship (Retriever or covetor are in the ganker menu). This game is supposed to be fun for all players. Currently, it is too easy for ganking and I am for that shakes their screws. There is no consequence and the ganker is died laughing!

Often we see shouting matches who not end up more in the Local chat. Where is the pleasure ?

And I do not understand why CCP encourages this cowardly act in highsec. It just to rot the game.

Another suggestion : Now How to reduce this cowardly act? If you are in highsec and you are not in wardec, just remove the reward when you destroy a vessel with no def. (mining barge, Transport ship, freighter) It's easy and simple and the number of ganker will significantly decrease.

The day or you will understand that this game is not just a Pew Pew game. That day, the world will have evolved a little bit...

Fly safe... in highsec!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#95 - 2015-01-30 05:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
shai'd. this is a pew pew game. every mechanic in EvE is designed to enable pew pew. This is how it is meant to be. The pleasure is in competition and overcoming challenges.

if you dont like it, why are you playing?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2015-01-30 06:15:36 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
shai'd. this is a pew pew game. every mechanic in EvE is designed to enable pew pew. This is how it is meant to be. The pleasure is in competition and overcoming challenges.

if you dont like it, why are you playing?


Hello,

Yes I know this is a game where the pew pew is predominant. There are several areas to do it and when I go to these areas, I accept the risks.

I do not like that we encourage in games cowardly and unfair acts. I think it is a very bad example to set for our young players. This is why I don't like Ganker.

You ask me why I love playing this game?
Actually, I like more facet of the game, including research, invention, construction, trade, mining, exploration and PVP, but even in small doses.

When I'm highsec is that I want a quiet place, as always in combat, it getting boring for me.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#97 - 2015-01-30 06:25:59 UTC
unfortunately you are playing a game where no where is safe. Read my sig.

You can be attacked at any moment. Meaning you can be challenged at any moment. This is part of the fun of eve. There are quiet places in eve where suicide ganking is not allowed. Live in the noob systems and never come out. If thats the game you want.

Ganking is healthy for high-sec, not a bad example. It causes destruction which fuels the economy. And brings risk to the otherwise very safe rewards of hi-sec. Without it, this game would be boring and high-sec plain broken.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#98 - 2015-01-30 06:36:21 UTC
Shai'd Hulud wrote:
Yes I know this is a game where the pew pew is predominant. There are several areas to do it and when I go to these areas, I accept the risks.


There are four areas to be exact: high sec, low sec, null sec and wormhole space.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#99 - 2015-01-30 06:36:36 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
The only other 'nerf' I'd have in mind is possibly providing a more structured monetary incentive for killing gankers.

But I mean, I can't image you find it surprising ppl would want to see ganking nerfed. Mechanics are put in place to try to penalize gankers / balance ganking, then poor implemention allows for these penalties to remain mostly circumvented.

im curious if hypothectically, would you believe there would be justification to implement mechanics that made gankers more susceptible to their risks, provided it was possible?

Has there ever been any concerted campaign by hisec industrial types to manipulate upward the price of security tags?

It's well know that many gankers who gank routinely do so using low-skill alts. These low-skill alts are, almost surely, not going out and killing rats to bring their security standings back up the old fashion way. They're likely buying security tags using ISK acquired by their main (or corp).

So, if you and large group of other ganking victims (Red Frog?) decided to manipulate the prices on these tags, you greatly increase the cost of ganking, or force the gankers to spend a lot of time grinding their own low-sec rats. It would cost a LOT of ISK. Looking at Jita, I see that about 100 to 200 Negotiator Tags move every day and at around 16M each. One person isn't going to take on those numbers; but a wealthy alliance most definitely could. It may involve some RL $$$ and PLEX to jack up the prices and keep them high. Would it be worth it? *shrug*

Granted, I don't know much about this facet of Eve, at what frequency the necessary NPCs spawn, of how time-effective it is to deliberately hunt them. Thoughts on viability?
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#100 - 2015-01-30 06:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Iain Cariaba wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Guaranteed ship loss, sec loss, chance of gank failure, the inability to roam freely in high sec with a ship when -5 sec or lower, open season to all anywhere any time and kill rights, are not risks that gankers are susceptible to then?

Must be why ganking is so prevalent then. Oh wait....


Your ship loss is a cost of business, similar to pve'er ammo, miner crystals, market fees, etc.

But take gank failure due to a 3rd party thwarting it, or -5 sec, or killrights etc. The amount of time you are required to be exposed to those risks / the window of opportunity a 3rd party has to try to ruin your day is very short, compared to a miner who must remain in a belt for long periods of time, a freighter at risk after every jump in their route, a pver in a mission, a pos doing xyz, a poco, fw plexer, explorer, etc.... As far as money making professions are concerned, your time spent being susceptible is particularly short

Yet their time spent in boredom trying to aquire targets is much greater that any of your provided exampes.

I'm curious, what is the average isk/hr made on a typical miner gank and a typical freighter gank once you factor in all the man hours to find the targets and arrange the gank?

You'd have to dig through my old posts, but I did calculate this on the forums once. It came out to about 3 mill an hour for miner ganking, and 15m/hr/player for freighter ganking. The difficulty with the freighter ganking calculation is that the reward per gank varies wildly. I don't remember what numbers I used for average loot from a freighter, but I made the (very generous) assumption that the gankers somehow managed to find three targets worth ganking per hour and ignored all empty targets (this doesn't actually happen). Day and time also play into those numbers heavily. The largest kills are often within 30-60 minutes of downtime.

Oh and for anyone who says that the consequences of ganking don't matter. Keep it mind that it takes a full month to wait out killrights. My last one went away today, and I haven't ganked anything since december. Yes they can be cleared in many cases, but when you have over 120 killrights, I promise you won't be doing it that way. Also, claiming that tags are cheap or whatever is blatantly false. If I were only to gank miners, I would be looking at 60-70 hours of ganking to afford one sec to tags to get myself back up to 0.0.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!