These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

HighSec Ganking and Appropriate Punishment

Author
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#21 - 2015-07-15 16:44:25 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This thread is going places.

Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right?


Ally in on all the war decs they have coming?



Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve.

11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down.

This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be.
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#22 - 2015-07-15 17:03:15 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This thread is going places.

Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right?


Ally in on all the war decs they have coming?



Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve.

11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down.

This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be.

Terrible suggestions all by themselves. You want to lessen available content in high sec artificially? Hell let's do whatever the op suggested while we are at it. Before lessening content there needs to be a serious driver for it first

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Taunrich Kaufmann
Hykkota-Kaufmann Foundaries LLC
#23 - 2015-07-15 17:27:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Taunrich Kaufmann
After reading your post I am beginning to understand why veteran players are so f*cking salty towards newcomers.

CODE and similar HighSec Space Gankers are just low-life bullies; no better and no different to the low-life that creates a false account on Face Book to bully someone online from their school or work place.
- No. Bullies IRL can cause genuine physical/mental/emotional harm to people if they are allowed to. EVE is a game, and if you are experiencing actual mental or emotional distress from losing your pretend spaceship then you seriously need to see a psychiatrist.

EVE is just another means to interact with people...How you choose to do so is what defines the difference between playing and bullying.
- Thank God we have you here to tell us 'how we should play'. Roll

People who pay to play eve make their own choice when it comes to how they wish to play EVE.
- People who pay to play EVE know what they're getting into. When some cheeky mofo ganks your venture, he has made a choice about how he wishes to play. When you undock in a poorly-fitted ship and get shot out of the sky, you have made a decision on how you wish to play.

Not everyone wishes to PvP or venture outside HighSec.
- Nobody's forcing you to PVP or leave high-sec. If you don't want to be ganked, play smarter. Move to a different system, or fight back.

I personally know people who just like to log on once or twice a week...They don’t ask any interaction with low-life gankers that deliberately exploit the game mechanics to attack people in HighSec without a WARDEC.
- It's not 'exploiting the game mechanics' just because you don't like it - or do you actually expect pirates to issue WarDecs on every single target they come across?

At this point in time, NullSec is a far safer place to fly than any of the main HighSec trade routes, and CCP are blatantly guilty of creating this situation.
- Null is a 'far safer place to fly'? It sounds like you've solved your own problem here.
BTW, I regularly fly the HighSec trade routes and have never encountered any problems. Like yourself, I'm in the Aus timezone.

If I...web my Corp mate’s freighter off a gate, I get an aggression timer that will not allow me to dock or jump through a stargate. I have done nothing wrong, but am forced to pay a penalty of 60 seconds.
- Pretty sure stasis web counts as an offensive module (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and so activating it will naturally result in a cooldown timer.

A low-life ganker can attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play EVE for their own enjoyment
- You should be aware by now that gankers 'attack and destroy billions of ISK worth of freighter and cargo belonging to someone who chooses to play eve for their own enjoyment' for their own enjoyment.

...chooses to stay in HighSec and has no wish to be involved with PvP.
- EVE doesn't revolve around your wishes. The game focuses on PVP, whether you're dogfighting with other players, engaging in huge FW fleet battles, playing the market or even mining. It is a game about corporate competition. EVE was literally founded on and is centred on PVP.

You cannot even try to defend your freighter or industrial ship
- You can protect yourself from ganking by having the sense to vary your mining locations, vary your shipping routes and by using the freaking scanner.

...it is an exploit; one that CCP is well aware of and as yet does nothing to fix and curb the bulling they knowingly allow in what is supposed to be the HIGH SECURITY play area of the game.
- Shooting other players is not an exploit. Doing it in HighSec is not an exploit. You aren't supposed to be 100% safe anywhere once you undock, it's not that type of game.

Two years ago, it was normal to see 27 to 33 thousand accounts online in the Australian Time Zone. Now, two years on, I’m lucky if I see 17 to 20 thousand accounts.
- Not attributable to ganking. Aus timezone usually sees 17-25 thousand on - you don't have to be 'lucky' to see this many.

My brother no longer plays..2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays..2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays..he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays..1 account..there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking
- Can you provide a citation for these numbers? And 6 accounts for one person sounds like a bot setup tbh.

...not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec.
- So pay for a permit you degenerate Blink

Personally, I don’t believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term ‘High Security Space’.
- Compared with lowsec and nullsec space, highsec is indeed 'high security'. Try flying in null to see the difference.

The term 'high security' does not mean what you think it means. HighSec is not a safe zone, bad things can still happen.
People are not 'bullies' for ganking you, scamming you, shooting you and taking all your sh*t, or generally being annoying.

Ganking is not the equivalent of creating a false FB profile to bully someone, and to consider blowing up someone's pretend spaceship equivalent to dealing real harm to someone takes some serious mental gymnastics.

It's been said before and I'll say it again; if you want an easy game, there's always this.

When you decide to embrace EVE, it will be here waiting for you, gankers and all.
Freya Sertan
Doomheim
#24 - 2015-07-15 17:45:25 UTC
Silent Renegade wrote:
People claim it is all the multi-boxers and bot miners out of the game. Really? My brother no longer plays – 2 accounts; one of my best mates in WA no longer plays – 2 accounts; a friend in Melbourne no longer plays – he had 6 accounts; my son no longer plays – 1 account.

They are just the people I know personally, but there are many others I know only through the game that no longer play, and every one of them quit EVE because the HighSec ganking - not just of freighters, but the stand over tactics of CODE bulling miners into paying for a permit to mine in HighSec.



Sounds like them leaving is the best thing for Eve. We don't want or need people who get so ******* butthurt over losing a ship that they quit.

That many accounts though, sounds pretty ******* bot-aspirant to me.

New Eden isn't nice. It isn't friendly. It isn't very hospitiable. Good thing there are people here to shoot in the face.

Want to make New Eden a nice place? Try this out.

Orlacc
#25 - 2015-07-15 17:50:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Orlacc
One more time. EVE is not a PVE game. Nor is it a PVP game.

There are many other games that will fill that need.


P.S. They always say they have multiple accounts (they don't) as they think CCP will panic if they leave.

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."

Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#26 - 2015-07-15 17:58:32 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
One more time. EVE is not a PVE game. Nor is it a PVP game.

There are many other games that will fill that need.


P.S. They always say they have multiple accounts (they don't) as they think CCP will panic if they leave.


are you drunk? What?

Just Add Water

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#27 - 2015-07-15 18:02:54 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
This thread is going places.

Edit: Also it's obvious what I'm about to do with the OP's alliance, right?


Ally in on all the war decs they have coming?



Oh, that's number 11 on the list of things wrong w/ eve.

11. The empire war dec system is totally upside down.

This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be.

Terrible suggestions all by themselves. You want to lessen available content in high sec artificially? Hell let's do whatever the op suggested while we are at it. Before lessening content there needs to be a serious driver for it first


To quote your masters: "I don't want to ruin the game, I want to ruin your game."

Just like you don't consider shooting npc rats in lvl 3 missions content, most of eve doesn't consider what happens on the Jita undock content either.

EVE conflict drivers (again no particular order):

1 - personal reasons (smack talk / ouchy feelings / retaliations / corp splits / alliance breakups)
2 - lols
3 - the breaking of some imaginary rule imposed by some group (Policing LS)
4 - Empire resources (POCOs, moons next to Jita)


Things that don't drive conflict:

1 - 100+ active wardec fueled turkey shoots on trade hub undocks
2 - moon goo
3 - incursions
4 - large sov null business buddies
5 - any form of pve or pve mechanic
6 - any pilot / corp / alliance w/ a kb eff > 90% (Vimsy is a great example of risk averse kb wootstats)
7 - any game mechanic that makes eve easier
Black Pedro
Mine.
#28 - 2015-07-15 18:55:28 UTC
Silent Renegade wrote:


Where is all this going you ask? Simple, I want to see a change to the mechanics of HighSec.

Personally, I don’t believe the mechanic should change that allows someone to target and shoot someone in HighSec without an active declared war. It is a conscious decision on their part if they choose to be a bully. It is the penalty they pay that needs to change. The current penalty makes a complete joke of the term ‘High Security Space’.

If CCP can make an aggression timer that locks a player’s access to docking or Stargates for 60 seconds, then they can write better penalty into game code than that. My personal thoughts on an appropriate penalty for killing another player’s ship in HighSec without an active declared war are:

1. CONCORD kills both Ship and Pod of the offending player(s);

2. Offending player has security status set to -10 for all factions and a criminal flag set until that security status is pushed back to zero or above for the faction space they wish to enter;

3. Offending player’s medical clone (if in HighSec) is relocated by CONCORD to the nearest NPC NullSec (possibly LowSec) station; and

4. The Criminal Flag set on an Offending player should act like an aggression timer, in the sense that it should bar them from accessing any stargate into HighSec space until they grind their security status back to a zero or positive state for the faction space they wish to access. Jump cloning into a HighSec station is also barred until the criminal flag is removed.


First, you might find some support for your unorthodox view of Eve game play at this blog: http://gankingisbullying.blogspot.com/

Second, I will respectfully point out your changes would not have saved your freighter. At best it would force gankers to use security tags to repair their status (something non-freighter hauler gankers do already) every few ganks so they can get back into highsec. This would just be a slight cost increase easily absorbed by those hunting overloaded freighters for profit, and a slight increase in time as they make a few jumps from the nearest lowsec system.

The only way most hauler ganking will stop is if players stop being greedy, clueless and/or lazy and shoving too much ISK worth of goods into their haulers. CCP has put suicide ganking into the game on purpose as a risk for these haulers - that's right, suicide ganking is not an exploit but rather intended game play. Your are not entitled to load everything you own into a ship, undock and press autopilot and have it moved safely while you watch Game of Thrones. You are intended to spend some effort to protect your stuff while in space. So please spend your energies learning how to do that safely rather than composing missives on the forum.
Bait'er De'Outlier
Trans-Aerospace Industries
#29 - 2015-07-15 19:06:21 UTC
More punishment you say?
I think having their mining barge blown up and maybe being podded for not knowing how the game works or the universe in which they fly is advertised, viewed and used by others is sufficient. I think the only further punishment that the ganked should endure might be having something like tooltips or a tip of the day about how to not get blown up appear every time they log in would suffice.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#30 - 2015-07-15 19:23:01 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
This is an easy one to fix too. Put a limit on the war activities that concord will sanction for any given entity. Cap it at 10. Having 100 open war decs and the current ally w/ everyone mechanics make the war decs meaningless. There is no need to pick and choose. The fees are upside down also. The more of an underdog you are (number of corp members) the cheaper the fee should be.

It's not that simple at all.

Large numbers of wars are generated by corporations dropping from an alliance. If you just put a hard cap on the number of aggressive wars you have you could cause people to cap out on their maximum wars by declaring a war on a single alliance and winning. In order for a limit to be mechanically sound there would need to be an established distinction between actual declared wars and "legacy" wars resulting from corps dropping from alliances.

It should be noted that alliances have never had a limit on the number of wars they can declare, but prior to inferno alliances with huge numbers of wars wasn't really a thing.

The reason why highsec PVP alliances with large numbers of members and huge quantities of wars became a thing was because the Inferno war mechanics removed the value of being in a corporation, rather than an alliance as a highsec PVPer.

Previously being in a corp meant wars against other corporations were extremely cheap, but you were limited to three and could not declare war instantly. Being in an alliance meant you wars were 2500% more expensive, but you were not limited in quantity and could declare war instantly.

Currently if you're in a corporation your wars cost as much as if you were in an alliance, which when paid continuously and in multiple is prohibitively expensive for more casual players, so those players join large alliances like Marmite rather than remaining independent. The larger groups need to declare more wars to provide sufficient content for their members, otherwise they lose members to their competitors, and subsequently are motivated to declare as many wars as possible.

If you want a system involving in limit to work I think would be best implemented as follows:

Corporations are limited to 10 aggressive wars, wars resulting from corporations dropping from an alliance and tagged as "Legacy" wars and don't count towards this cap, alliances have no limitation. Wars declared by a corporation against another corporation cost 10 million isk per week, wars between a corporation and an alliance, between two alliances or between an alliance and a corporation cost 50 million. There is no cost scaling whatsoever.

I'd also like to see changes to the ally system wherein a defender calling in an ally allows the aggressor to call in one of their own, allowing back and forth escalation, so that the system doesn't serve just provide anyone other than dedicated PVPers a massive disincentive to declaring wars. Aggression should be rewarded, not punished as conflict creates content.
Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-07-15 19:30:10 UTC
Screw world peace, I want a pony.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#32 - 2015-07-15 19:41:03 UTC
Renegade Heart wrote:
Screw world peace, I want a pony.
Nah you don't, believe me

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-07-15 20:39:03 UTC
Vimsy Vortis always talks sense i like her more and more everyday Big smile

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#34 - 2015-07-15 21:06:47 UTC
The issue that would immediately arise is the current groups would DEC the biggest high sec corps and instead of the casual attitude they currently have they would hunt them to extinction. This is the problem with limiting content to an established group. Ideally a content driver needs to open up new opportunities for new conflicts because imposing sanctions hurts everybody using that space

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#35 - 2015-07-15 21:23:27 UTC
"Now, I don't want to delete ganking..." *Proposes mechanics that would delete ganking*

Roll

"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.

Martyr Oira
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#36 - 2015-07-15 21:43:56 UTC
OR

you start dealing with it and adapt instead of trying to change the game.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#37 - 2015-07-15 22:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Martyr Oira wrote:
OR

you start dealing with it and adapt instead of trying to change the game.
If only people like the OP put as much effort into playing the game as they do into whining about it...

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Faylee Freir
Slavers Union
BLACKFLAG.
#38 - 2015-07-15 22:05:01 UTC
Why does this thread smell like ****?
Siegfried Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
Freighter Friends
#39 - 2015-07-16 00:31:36 UTC
The appropriate punishment for these carebear haulers that fly around in our space is to get their ship blown up. Highsec ganking is fine and I love shooting freighters.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#40 - 2015-07-16 01:37:50 UTC
Miner! Calm down!

Now, instead of writing such a thread full of tears, why don't you just purchase a mining permit? I mean it is only 10mil ISK and valid for a whole year.

Or maybe go to wormsec if you don't like it in New Order territory?