EVE General Discussion

^^ I was right, full of bile and unintended irony.

Thanks Aaron.

Don't feed it.

It's just going to come back with 'there are no risks or punishments because blah, blah, blah....the game sux and so does everyone that plays it...blah, blah, blah..."

It's a pointless exercise ever giving it any sort of reply.

Baltec a forum clown AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yea, you lose your ship and take a meaningless sec status hit, can't dock for a while and your victim gets a kill right on you. So Next to nothing. Worst case scenario you lose a ship that you were already willing to pay as a negligible cost in order to blow up someone elses ship.

Try not to be such a narrow-minded forum dwelling twit and accept that the critics of suicide ganking have a point.

suicide gankers have it easymode in EVE, playing with no real risk for potentially tremendous rewards.

EVE is definitely not a harsh and dangerous place for all and the grief monkeys want to keep it ****** like that.

Im not arguing scanning ships/cargo should have a suspect timer of moral grounds.
(Although there is an element of that)

Im arguing it as an invasive acquisition of someone elses data, at no risk/cost.

Suicide ganking itself incurs a 100% fatality from CONCORD.
Hauling the loot applies a suspect timer.

But scanning incurs no penalty or cost..

Some here are trying to argue that scanning causing a suspect timer would
A) Nerf suicide ganking. It does not. Scanning and suicide ganking are two different actions.
B) Nerfs HS PvP. It does not. It increases it, as the scanning ship can be attacked post-change.

I understsnd the efforts here to lump scanning into suicide ganking, as a necessary part of the activity, but it is not.
Its only a convenience to enable greater profits from suicide ganking.
That is fine, in and of itself, and the change will not prevent them from doing so.
It just means the scanning ship must share risk and cost for doing so.

False. Its exactly the inverse.

Any ship in HS can already be attacked by suicide ganking. Incurring a suspect timer for scanning does not prevent that.

I want scanning ships to incur cost/risk commensurate with their actions.

You want scanning ships to be able to scan with no consequence, reducing consequence for the ganking alts in the group effort.

I this is good point.

It is perfectly fine, that there are pirates in HS. Being a HS pirate/ganker should be profitable, but it should come also at a cost.
My thoughts about it: after 2-3 ganks in HS, the pirate should lose CONCORD support for longer period of time. Means, that no CONCORD ships show up, when the guy is attacked (no matter by whom), basically meaning, that the pirate would be living like in null. Killing a pirate gives you rewards from CONCORD, to reward piratehunters.

This would allow player organized law groups (bountyhunters would be wrong word hehe, considering there is some strange bountyhunting system) and would make some more actual PvP fights in HS instead of just cheap kills.

Ganking and overloaded cargos have no correlation. As stated previously I pulled up a number of freighter ganks on Zkill. Of the first 17 ganks 13 were empty or near empty freighters with an average total loss of around 1.4 bill including hull. The only thing they were loaded with was fresh air. What youre saying here is ganker apologist myth.

Edit: just checked zkill very first gank on there a near empty freighter (kir buxou) by Karma Fleet with stealth bombers.

1) All ships incur a mechanical risk/cost when in space, regardless of fit or actions. Nobody had argued against that, or claimed otherwise.(Do not fly that which you cannot afford to lose).

2) Scanning a ship=/= observation. Its an active, module based intrusion into another players data, beyond mere observation.

3) Scanning another ships fit/cargo, should have consequences. D-scan does not require a module. Combat probing requires time and does not pry into the ships fit/cargo. This is like comparing apples, to oranges, to limes.

4) Incurring a suspect penalty for scanning another ship in HS:
-Allows for counterplay by others to engage the scanning ship.
-Allows for players to find and interact with scanning ships.
-Does not prevent someone from scanning.
-Does not prevent suicide ganking.

5) If you want to acquire fit/cargo information of a potential target, there should be a risk/consequence for that data.
Untold numbers of scanning ships operating at untold gates, scanning untold numbers of ships, is hardly something that can be argued as increasing player interaction or content.

If those ships go suspect for doing so, however, player interaction will escalate dramatically, as they now become potential targets themselves.

It is rational, that if a player is attempting to ascertain whether a ship is to be a target, by intrusively, actively prying into its fit/hold, that player themself should also become a potential target.

The tactical value of fit/cargo data is enormous. As you and others have highlighted, and confirmed it is important to assessing the risk/reward of engaging that target via suicide gank.

This is well and fine. But the player doing the scanning should also incur risk/cost for acquiring that valuable data.

A suspect timer fulfills this, does not change suicide ganking mechanics, does not reduce pvp in aggregate (rather increases it), and applies a rational cost/risk for acquiring valuable data beneficial to ascertaining what target to suicide gank.

Not convinced.

You are making intel gathering a suspect-level offence for dubious reasons. I see no plausible way this change would increase player interaction and activity, only decrease it.

Good luck getting your idea implemented.