These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ILLEGAL Hi-sec podding

First post
Author
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#21 - 2015-11-29 22:33:37 UTC
Lyra Gerie wrote:
A few things
1. NPC's CAN and have podded players.

Do you have any proof of this?
I know I have not seen it all, but I have never seem nor even heard of an NPC actually taking out a POD before.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#22 - 2015-11-29 22:41:40 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
And yet I wonder, did CCP actually code it this way on purpose knowing that suicide ganking would be the result.
Or is suicide ganking one those emergent game play things that was not anticipated or expected?

It was the latter.

When EVE was young the "rules" were lax. And when people began to suicide gank (after the CONCORD buffs), most of the DEV's basically said, "hey, that's cool! If gankers are okay with losing stuff to achieve their goals... that's fine. It's up to the defender to make it unprofitable and exact revenge"

The act has been indirectly "tweaked" here and there... but the DEVs have never made a move to make it unreasonable to perform or outright prevent it in 10+ years.

Donnachadh wrote:
Lyra Gerie wrote:
A few things
1. NPC's CAN and have podded players.

Do you have any proof of this?
I know I have not seen it all, but I have never seem nor even heard of an NPC actually taking out a POD before.

Drifters.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#23 - 2015-11-29 23:07:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Galrak Malinkorn wrote:
Its not up to players to decide whether all areas are PVP or PVE, or a mixture of both or in seperate areas, that is up to the game developers and how THEY wish the game play to be, NOT individuals that believe theres is the only way.

Just because someone ASSUMES their way is the right way, doesn't follow that it is the right way , its just an opinion. If someone doesnt agree with you, get over it.

And I also suggest to that if certain changes did ever come in being and anyone doesn't like them they too like myself always have the option not to play either.


Im not assuming.

It was CCP who told us the entire game, including hi-sec, is a full time PvP sandbox. Part of my sig is from the EVE FAQ that explains that very point (section 7). And it was a member of CCP that delivered the falcon punch:
Quote:


CCP Falcon wrote:

"I love EVE and the core of what the game stands for. That's why I've been dedicated to it and its community for over 11 years now.

Risk vs Reward is a huge part of that.

Honestly, if that changed, and the game started to soften out and cater to those who want to have their hand held all the way through their gameplay experience, I'd rather not be working on the project regardless of how many subscribers we had, than sell out the core principles that New Eden was built on.

That's a sentiment that I hear a lot around the office, because we are all invested in what makes New Eden so compelling - The dark, gritty, hard reality beneath the pretty ships and nebulas.

EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.

Sorry, but your scaremongering counter argument makes no sense to me and carries no weight :)"

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-11-29 23:31:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Good god, you must have depleted an entire ocean's worth of salt for that post. Good news everyone, the Pacific is now freshwater, so drinkable water isn't a problem anymore!

Also, had to check to make sure I didn't cause this rant. Checked, not my guy.

It won't be drinkable for long. The average saltwater organism takes all of about 3 hours to go fully rotten. We're going to have a terrible mess on our hands in a moment...

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2015-11-29 23:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
As was already noted by Iain, learn to Eve.

First off, horrible fit. Mining barges are better suited with a shield tank. Drop the scanner and go with a shield tanking module. Also, T2 rigs...on a retriever and not for tank? Fit a damage control for crying out loud. If you cannot get your tank over 15,000 you are doing it wrong. When tanking a mining barge and you fit a damage control...a reinforced bulkhead will help quite a bit. Fit a damage control and a reinforced bulkhead alone will get your ehp on a retriever (with good skills) from about 9,479 to 15,890, or a 2/3rds increase in your ehp (and those two guys could not have ganked you with just 2 ships). Add on a small shield extender 16,909 ehp. Slap a T1 medium anti-thermal screen reinforcer (good against catalysts) and 2 medium core defense field extenders and you go over 20,000 ehp against catalysts, the primary gank ship.

For an even more tanky ship...go with the procurer, yes you'll likely sacrifice some yield but, when you lose nearly 80 million in ship and another 84 million in implants, you are not just doing it wrong you are doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you had been in a tanked out procurer you probably would not have been ganked. The gankers would have to bring an order of magnitude more ships to gank you--i.e. they'd have to bring 20 catalysts and they'd lose around 160 million.

Learn how long it takes CONCORD to respond. Here is a helpful link. In a 0.9 system it will be about 7 seconds till CONCORD first appears. If you can tank for 8-10 seconds you'll live and they will die. Learn which ships are the primary gank ships and the damage they do.

BTW, both of those tanked ships cost half what your retriever cost.

In the end you have nobody to blame put yourself. You fit a horrible tank, you spent too much ISK going for a paltry increase in your mining yield, and you were almost surely not paying attention to what was going on around you. You probably have not set groups like CODE. red in your watchlist/standings (this makes them easier to see in local). Also get something like EFT so you can try out fits and play around with it as well so you can learn about things like transversal, stacking penalties, etc.

Edit: Oh overheating when the gank starts if you have active shield mods is a good idea too.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-11-29 23:37:01 UTC
In response to the OP: when a newbie gets podded that first time and has to do the slow walk of shame back from their medical station, they learn to set up clone stations more often and/or fly defensively+stay alert. In World of Warcraft terms: it's like when you have to journey out to a distant location to get your character to a place where you can start leveling up again, but then you collect the flight point and never have to make that journey again. You live and grow, in the case of EVE that means learning from your mistakes.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2015-11-29 23:55:19 UTC
Galrak Malinkorn wrote:
oh my god.. I just fell off my chair howling in laughter at all these posts...you lot are soooooo funny its unreal, oh well you're all entitlled to your opinions, cant take that from you love reading your comments.. geez theyre hilarious... one point I never go AFK EVER never have EVER, other than that love your snidy remarks, your holier than thou comments, that only your opinions count for anything, you lot just make my day..cant stop laugghin ... please no more please.. ha! ha! ha...gawd my sides are achin now.. need a beer..LolLolLolLolLolLolLolLol


Then take this piece of advice, when you are getting shot in HS, then try to warp out, if you are not going to make it, keep spamming warp so that when your pod ejects it warps...at least you'll save your implants.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2015-11-29 23:58:25 UTC
Galrak Malinkorn wrote:
Its not up to players to decide whether all areas are PVP or PVE, or a mixture of both or in seperate areas, that is up to the game developers and how THEY wish the game play to be, NOT individuals that believe theres is the only way.

Just because someone ASSUMES their way is the right way, doesn't follow that it is the right way , its just an opinion. If someone doesnt agree with you, get over it.

And I also suggest to that if certain changes did ever come in being and anyone doesn't like them they too like myself always have the option not to play either.


The game developers decided this well over a decade ago, all areas are to varying degrees PvP areas.

Also, this is a sandbox MMO, the developers give us a limited list of rules (there is no rule against podding anywhere except starter systems, BTW) and the mechanics and pretty much let us do what we will. This is a game where the content is based on player interactions--emergent behavior.

You really have a problem with the fundamental nature of this game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
United Caldari Space Command.
#29 - 2015-11-30 00:12:41 UTC
Galrak Malinkorn wrote:
NPCs NEVER


Wrong, sleepers will pod you. As such I can pod you in highsec if I feel like it. Sorry man, maybe you should not pod around in space.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2015-11-30 00:51:10 UTC
I'm against reimbursement of ships and implants, but I do agree with the podding of illegal pod killers.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter anyway.

The gankers will take this into consideration when deciding to pod kill another pilot.
IE, they're going to be in naked clones.

So, they kill a 3 bil freighter and lose 300 mil in gank ships (if that), then gank a 1bil pod in which maybe 10 of them get on the KM (that's pushing it), and it costs them maybe 100k isk...

Soo yeah... while I agree with that suggestion, it makes no difference..
It would just be there to catch the occasional jack ass that was too dumb to swap clones before ganking.
The hilarity of this is worth it, but it will happen maybe 1 out of every 1000 ganks...
Galrak Malinkorn
kest Industrials
#31 - 2015-11-30 00:53:37 UTC
yawn! yawn! yawn! yea heard it all before, blah! blah! blah!..... you all know nothing... you are all irrelevant, deal with it ....
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2015-11-30 00:57:31 UTC
Who's going to be the first to report this thread for trolling?
Galrak Malinkorn
kest Industrials
#33 - 2015-11-30 00:58:00 UTC
oh by the way i'm done with this thread now.. so you can all ridicule me all you like ...i wont be readin it.. i real dont care...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2015-11-30 01:01:06 UTC
Please, keep telling us how little you care!
Netan MalDoran
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-11-30 02:18:12 UTC
HTFU!
The onlything that is 'Illegal' is anything that breaks the EULA

IB4L Evil

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2015-11-30 02:34:33 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Did you ever stop to consider that suicide ganking exists because the game developers deliberately coded it into the game?

Ganking is and CCP has made it clear that they are OK with it at this point so please accept this as I intend it strictly a related topic that is of interest to me.

And yet I wonder, did CCP actually code it this way on purpose knowing that suicide ganking would be the result.
Or is suicide ganking one those emergent game play things that was not anticipated or expected?
If it was this latter it would hardly be the first and it will not be the last time that we they players have taken what we are given and then find uses for it that were never though of by CCP or that were never intended to happen.


If it was not intended, they would not of made concord take that much time to respond...
The Ginger Sith
Attero Industries
Dreads Amongst Drifters
#37 - 2015-11-30 02:38:39 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Good god, you must have depleted an entire ocean's worth of salt for that post. Good news everyone, the Pacific is now freshwater, so drinkable water isn't a problem anymore!

Also, had to check to make sure I didn't cause this rant. Checked, not my guy.



So what your trying to say is that you loved his post and agree with him? since salt is a good thing enhancing flavor as well as preserving meat products so just so you know your complimenting people when you call them salty :P
Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-11-30 04:58:16 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


The gankers will take this into consideration when deciding to pod kill another pilot.
IE, they're going to be in naked clones.



Of course they will, but there is still the inconvenience to consider if CONCORD were to pod the criminal podder.

Also why not issue steep fines that only get steeper with each violation. Should the criminal not have the ISK, then they go into deficit and any incoming ISK is immediately used to pay off their fine.

Alternatively there's always the incarceration idea. Which has some interesting role play aspects to it as well. But say start at 1 hour and every violation (say in a one month period) increases that up to a maximum 24 hours.

And it goes without saying that there's also the possibility of hitting the perpetrator with significantly higher dings to their security status for podding an innocent in Hi-Sec.

I wouldn't mind seeing these penalties also issued simply for ganking ships that are unable to fight back (miners, haulers, industrials).


Iain Cariaba
#39 - 2015-11-30 06:06:10 UTC
Ageanal Olerie wrote:
Of course they will, but there is still the inconvenience to consider if CONCORD were to pod the criminal podder.

As someone who's actualy tried ganking, I would have enjoyed the quick trip back to base. Would've saved me the hassle of having to fly back in my pod while a legal target to literally everyone in the game.

Ageanal Olerie wrote:
Also why not issue steep fines that only get steeper with each violation. Should the criminal not have the ISK, then they go into deficit and any incoming ISK is immediately used to pay off their fine.

Oh no!!! The totally broke alt I keep trained up, in case one of you carebears manages to whine me back into ganking, that's never had or made any isk, nor ever will, won't be able to hold any of the isk I'm never going to send her?!?!? Oh, however will my Jita alt ever cope with this!!! Roll

Ageanal Olerie wrote:
Alternatively there's always the incarceration idea. Which has some interesting role play aspects to it as well. But say start at 1 hour and every violation (say in a one month period) increases that up to a maximum 24 hours.

Because it's good to punish people for behaving in the spirit of the game by not allowing them to play the game? If you think this is a good idea, you're playing the wrong game.

Ageanal Olerie wrote:
And it goes without saying that there's also the possibility of hitting the perpetrator with significantly higher dings to their security status for podding an innocent in Hi-Sec.

-10.0 is -10.0, regardless of how fast you get there. Besides, the current formula allows a white knight with that coveted 5.0 sec status they're super protective of to pre-emtively gank 24 bumping machariels before they suffer any penalty at all to a negative sec status.

Ageanal Olerie wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing these penalties also issued simply for ganking ships that are unable to fight back (miners, haulers, industrials).

Here's a bit of a news flash for you. Attentive people actually playing the game don't get ganked. Once again in a thread like this, I have to point to Red Frog's completion ratio of 99.8% successful HS deleveries for last year. Personally, I've had the same freighter for years now, and haven't lost a mining barge to a gank since 2008. Why is it too much to ask that you actually play the game?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#40 - 2015-11-30 09:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Did you ever stop to consider that suicide ganking exists because the game developers deliberately coded it into the game?

Ganking is and CCP has made it clear that they are OK with it at this point so please accept this as I intend it strictly a related topic that is of interest to me.

And yet I wonder, did CCP actually code it this way on purpose knowing that suicide ganking would be the result.
Or is suicide ganking one those emergent game play things that was not anticipated or expected?
If it was this latter it would hardly be the first and it will not be the last time that we they players have taken what we are given and then find uses for it that were never though of by CCP or that were never intended to happen.


If it was not intended, they would not of made concord take that much time to respond...
Exactly. I am sure CCP didn't foresee exactly how suicide ganking would develop, but they obviously wanted it to exist. They could easily have locked out aggression, or set CONCORD response times to 0 (and still could) if they wanted players to be safe from attack in highsec. The varying CONCORD response times is clearly an attempt to make a gradient of safety across highsec which, more-or-less, was successful. If you fly a max-tanked Skiff in a 1.0 system you essentially immune to suicide ganking as the fleet size and cost required to gank that would be more likely used to hunt freighters, while if you fly an anti-tanked Covetor in a 0.5 I can take out 2 or even 3 of them with a single Catalyst before CONCORD arrives. The game for the miner is to balance yield and the quality of ore (system security status) against the risk of being attacked (and defense from that attack) and thus losing their ship. All of this game play is predicated on the ability of players to sacrifice their ship to (attempt to) destroy another player's.

There is no other reason to spend all that time coding CONCORD, and designing/implementing the security system to track criminal behaviour unless CCP intended for criminals to operate in highsec. They are the only risk left for NPC corp members who leave their safeties on 'green' so despite what the OP is hoping for, suicide ganking is not going anywhere.