These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Can flippers and gankers in High sec problem
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Argyle Jones
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2012-01-30 12:06:48 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
All noobs can do effectively is "carebear". You cant take them to W-Space or Null right away. They need skill books, they want to stay close to their starting locations, they want to wander around. And they not used to idea that ship is expendable. And they dont like that idea. It takes some time for them to get used to it and gain experience. All what flippers and gankers effectively do is making people angry and out of the game.


I agree that less options are open to you as a new player, but what you're saying is simply not true. You can PVP effectively after a few days of skill-training, tackling in a frigate or providing some wholesome DPS in a destroyer class vessel.

Granted A frigate or a destroyer is no use in solo PVP against a veteran player, but if you're in a corporate fleet and you have several ships, that frigate is immensely useful. The key thing is to join a decent player run corporation and learn the ropes from someone with experience. They could tell you what to do to defend yourself. They'd have a designated hauler to keep the jet-cans relatively empty and the loss from can flippers to a minimum and they would never be mining in an area with 7 can flippers to begin with.

Instead of complaining that CCP is not molding their 9 year old game to exactly the way you want to play it you should consider learning the best way to play the game as it is.

/Yargle
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#122 - 2012-01-30 12:07:26 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

There is not an imbalance in favor of gankers. There are more than enough tools to stop yourself from getting ganked, the fact that people chose not to use them is not an argument for further nerfs to pirates.


When hulks cannot get consistantly get knocked out of the sky from a handfull of destroyers regardless of whatever shield fits they put on them and at significantly less assest cost to themselves I will beleive you. Until then sorry, just another dont touch my area of the game, don't care about you comment.

Bring on a working bounty system, bring on corrective war changes, bring back the fun. Pinata bashing doesnt interest me or the losers who participate in it.


Hulks can easily tank a gank brutix all the way up to an alpha tempest.
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#123 - 2012-01-30 12:13:58 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Pure fact that this thread grew so big means that people do care and feel that there must be some changes to either way means this is something that worth the discussion and attention from both the CSM and CCP. Thank you.


Not pure fact as this thread has only continued because players who appreciate the different facets of the game are telling you that you're incorrect. I have an industrial character on my 2nd account and he's only been ganked when I got careless. If you're so concerned about new players why not do what I'm doing and take a few under your wing and show them the ropes, they actually learn from your experience then. That's a far better way to keep players in the game than wrapping them in cotton wool.

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#124 - 2012-01-30 12:16:36 UTC
I got flipped and ganked as a wee noob. It just made me want to become a ganker, because mining was so boring and that one cane killed everyone by itself..

To this day, I try to return that favor by ganking miners in hisec.
Matalok
Slackers and Nihilists
#125 - 2012-01-30 12:18:06 UTC
Argyle Jones wrote:
I agree that less options are open to you as a new player, but what you're saying is simply not true. You can PVP effectively after a few days of skill-training, tackling in a frigate or providing some wholesome DPS in a destroyer class vessel.


As a founding member of a corporation born on this idea, anyone who says newbies can't join in PvP or go into nullsec are elitist idiots. A newbro in a Rifter can really ruin someone's day given the opportunity.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#126 - 2012-01-30 12:21:49 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
I'm simply going to have to disagree with your opinion on the matter as I feel we are simply diometrically opposed on two ends of a valid spectrum, Tippia.
Fair enough.

Quote:
All I see is you arguing your case with extremes selfishly in a deperate attempt to maintain any position in game. And I'm sorry I've lost quite a bit of respect for your opinion as a result.
So what is this position I'm supposedly trying to maintain?

Quote:
There is no call for removal of mechanics, I'm not trying to prevent something exclusively, no. In essence I'm trying to make a compromise as usual.
See, now you're just bein naïve. There are plenty of calls for the removao of mechanics and that's the whole problem: there is no room for compromise withthe safety extremists. Even for the nore noderate, the question remains: why compromise? Why is any change needed at all? What is the problem?

Quote:
But my view is there is simply too much in favour of criminal "suicide ganking" with gaming mechanics and just how it works. And as such more consequential outcomes and difficulty needs to be applied to the ganking process.
…and this is where the real difference lies. In my view, there is nothing favouring the criminals except the victims' complete and unrelenting refusal to take any responsibility whatsoever for the situations that arise. Evading the criminals is trivially easy already and it will not matter one whit how many more tools become available to the victims — they refuse to use the ones that already exist; adding more just gives them more things to refuse.

Quote:
Maybe I should just change my entire view on the subject and start being obstinatley self interested also and ask for complete immunity in High sec and stuff the EvE gaming community interests, seems to be the accepted "status quo". Lets just let EvE go to the wall, who cares.
Go ahead. That will just make your motivations and views farther removed from mine. It rather sounds like you're implying that I'm motivated by self-interest. The problem is that while, yes, you could probably paint it as such, the interest is most likely vastly different from what you think it is, as shown by your question about my biases.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#127 - 2012-01-30 12:22:21 UTC
Never been personally ganked.

Always try to be sensible rather than being stupidly greedy.

Will try to reduce risks.

Will use defensive tehcniques.

Will use sensible tactics, routes, spying, intelligence, watch local, don't just assume the closing mining ship is not a future warping point, keep a distance from belt warp points etc etc.

For me personally its not an issue.

For those who risk stupid things like plex running, multi billion assests in one haul with no provisions for sensible hauling techniques or shiney officer factions modded ships, they deserve what they get.

My view is simply that the risk needs to remain, ganking needs to remain but some steps towards valid retaliation and the discrepency of what gankers can achieve needs to be rebalanced in favour of the industrial.

Being in a corp currently does not afford any protection to a unaffiliated ganker who might have used a trial account just to make a small profit, rinse and repeat. Even more of a problem now with 60 day trials and the increased free training time. And the poor newb who cannot war dec, cannot respond to the avoidance tactics afforded and poor combat abilities.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#128 - 2012-01-30 12:22:50 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:
Pure fact that this thread grew so big means that people do care and feel that there must be some changes to either way means this is something that worth the discussion and attention from both the CSM and CCP. Thank you.
The reason these threads grow so big is because it's so hard to squeeze any kind of solid answers out of the obstinate security junkies as to why more safety is needed.

They have a tendency to demand changes without providing any argument for those changes.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#129 - 2012-01-30 12:27:04 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
My view is simply that the risk needs to remain, ganking needs to remain but some steps towards valid retaliation and the discrepency of what gankers can achieve needs to be rebalanced in favour of the industrial.
…and that just highlights the problem: they already don't use the tools at their disposal, so why would they suddenly start to use those new tools?

As for what the gankers can achieve, an immemse portion of that is already under the industrialists' control. Again, they just choose not to exercise that control.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#130 - 2012-01-30 12:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Tippia wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Pure fact that this thread grew so big means that people do care and feel that there must be some changes to either way means this is something that worth the discussion and attention from both the CSM and CCP. Thank you.
The reason these threads grow so big is because it's so hard to squeeze any kind of solid answers out of the obstinate security junkies as to why more safety is needed.

They have a tendency to demand changes without providing any argument for those changes.


I'm sorry but that is just bang out of order. I have been nothing more than civil in pandering to the request of supplying evidence and reasons by your water torture techniques in this thread. Largley the reason why it has expanded into boredom for others.

But this is the atypical trolling technique you use Tippia, it isnt clever debate at all, so don't pretend it is. It just a technique to out stamina your oponent with obstinate view points and avoidance techniques. There's nothing intelligent about it at all. And by virtue its just a controlling technique on the forums not very beneficial to the communty either.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#131 - 2012-01-30 12:32:07 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Never been personally ganked.

Always try to be sensible rather than being stupidly greedy.

Will try to reduce risks.

Will use defensive tehcniques.

Will use sensible tactics, routes, spying, intelligence, watch local, don't just assume the closing mining ship is not a future warping point, keep a distance from belt warp points etc etc.

For me personally its not an issue.

For those who risk stupid things like plex running, multi billion assests in one haul with no provisions for sensible hauling techniques or shiney officer factions modded ships, they deserve what they get.

My view is simply that the risk needs to remain, ganking needs to remain but some steps towards valid retaliation and the discrepency of what gankers can achieve needs to be rebalanced in favour of the industrial.

Being in a corp currently does not afford any protection to a unaffiliated ganker who might have used a trial account just to make a small profit, rinse and repeat. Even more of a problem now with 60 day trials and the increased free training time. And the poor newb who cannot war dec, cannot respond to the avoidance tactics afforded and poor combat abilities.



Interesting fact: It's virtually impossible to gank someone in high sec if they are alert and aware of how the game works.

Arguments like "but mining is so boring that it's impossible to pay attention while you're doing it" are not persuasive: if mining is so boring, why are you doing it? Do something else! There are so many things other than mining that even a fresh-out-of-the-tutorials player can do that there's simply no reason for them to be mining. It's not even the most lucrative - in fact it's actually one of the WORST income streams available to hi-sec players.

And yes, it's appallingly easy to gank someone in hi-sec if they're AFK and have never bothered to try to find out how EVE works, but in all honesty, so what? Why should we even try to balance EVE around a minority of lazy self-inflicted ignoramuses?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#132 - 2012-01-30 12:37:13 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Pure fact that this thread grew so big means that people do care and feel that there must be some changes to either way means this is something that worth the discussion and attention from both the CSM and CCP. Thank you.
The reason these threads grow so big is because it's so hard to squeeze any kind of solid answers out of the obstinate security junkies as to why more safety is needed.

They have a tendency to demand changes without providing any argument for those changes.


I'm sorry but that is just bang out of order. I have been nothing more than civil in pandering to the request of supplying evidence and reasons by your water torture techniques in this thread. Largley the reason why it has expanded into boredom for others.

But this is the atypical trolling technique you use Tippia, it isnt clever debate at all, so don't pretend it is. It just a technique to out stamina your oponent with obstinate view points and avoidance techniques. There's nothing intelligent about it at all. And by virtue its just a controlling technique on the forums not very beneficial to the communty either.




I tend to be more carebearish myself, but I'd hate to see Eve without those misfits that try to ruin a person's day. In truth they can be a pain, but on the other hand they make Eve a bit more interesting.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2012-01-30 12:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
I'm sorry but that is just bang out of order. I have been nothing more than civil in pandering to the request of supplying evidence and reasons by your water torture techniques in this thread. Largley the reason why it has expanded into boredom for others.
So you consider yourself one of those obstinate security junkies?
Or are you taking things personally that might not apply to you?

Quote:
It just a technique to out stamina your oponent with obstinate view points and avoidance techniques.
No, it's a technique to not let people get away with categorical claims without providing any kind of evidence, reasoning, or argument backing them up. I have seen more and more people adopt it for the benefit of all (or, well, for the benefit of those who prefer reasoned argumentation over unfounded nonsense — trolls serm to hate it).
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#134 - 2012-01-30 12:41:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
I've already done the math on the profitability ganking Exhumers with T2 fit Tornados.

These figures are averages, based on current Intact Armor plate prices, building the Tornados yourself off of a BPO, and assuming around 4M/T2 Arty and a 50% drop rate.

Kill one Mackinaw, you take a 25M loss. (rare - only happens when you blow it, shank a shot, fumble your rampage)
Kill two Mackinaws, you make a 15M gain. (dead easy)
Kill 3 Mackinaws, you make a 55M gain. (also, quite easy)
Kill 4 Mackinaws, and you get around 95-100M. (not hard, but sometimes you need to waste a Hulk instead of 2x Macks - or bots randomly warp off to unload....)
Kill 5 Mackinaws, and you earn 140M or so. (anything more than 4 takes some skill, fast lag-free internets or working in 0.5 space)
Kill 6 Mackinaws, and you can earn 180M+.


There seems to be this idea that ganking Exhumers shoudn't be profitable. I don't get that. Mining is profitable (well, kinda) - so why shouldn't ganking miners be profitable? I've gotta have 450M ISK/per account to pay for my PLEX. Takes me like a whole afternoon of killing Macks to earn that much. Its a real chore sometimes....

@Shazzam, or whoever is the guy arguing with Tippia for two pages: You seem not to like the idea that you can kill 220M worth of hulk for 10M worth of dessies - or 660M worth of Hulks for one 60M Tornado.

I guess the question is:
What would be a 'fair' rate of exchange then? You seem to think that miner-gankers should not allowed to profit from their trade. Further, it seems in your world - dessie gankers losing 10M/gank is insufficient, so I guess the question is:

In your fantasy: How much ISK should the gankers be 'required' to pay in order to kill an Exhumer? A hundred million? Two hundred million? 500 M? What figure would make YOU feel better about losing your Hulk? What do you consider fair?

Just remember: in EVE, 'fair' has very little to do with it.
Hell, in a more 'fair and equitable' world, you might even stand a chance in an argument with Tippia.Roll
Captain Torgo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2012-01-30 12:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Torgo
There's an easy fix to this. We tell newbies this all the time but they don't listen.

DON'T. JETCAN. MINE!

Simple really.
Alex Sinai
Doomheim
#136 - 2012-01-30 12:47:16 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Alex Sinai wrote:
Pure fact that this thread grew so big means that people do care and feel that there must be some changes to either way means this is something that worth the discussion and attention from both the CSM and CCP. Thank you.
The reason these threads grow so big is because it's so hard to squeeze any kind of solid answers out of the obstinate security junkies as to why more safety is needed.

They have a tendency to demand changes without providing any argument for those changes.


I'm sorry but that is just bang out of order. I have been nothing more than civil in pandering to the request of supplying evidence and reasons by your water torture techniques in this thread. Largley the reason why it has expanded into boredom for others.

But this is the atypical trolling technique you use Tippia, it isnt clever debate at all, so don't pretend it is. It just a technique to out stamina your oponent with obstinate view points and avoidance techniques. There's nothing intelligent about it at all. And by virtue its just a controlling technique on the forums not very beneficial to the communty either.




I tend to be more carebearish myself, but I'd hate to see Eve without those misfits that try to ruin a person's day. In truth they can be a pain, but on the other hand they make Eve a bit more interesting.


Like salt makes food more tasty. But put too much of it and you throw the dish out. I would not imagine eve without gankers or flippers. It would be terribly boring for newbies too. But there must be way more balancing to flipping and especially ganking mechanics.

Don't let them fly safe!
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#137 - 2012-01-30 12:49:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Never been personally ganked.

Always try to be sensible rather than being stupidly greedy.

Will try to reduce risks.

Will use defensive tehcniques.

Will use sensible tactics, routes, spying, intelligence, watch local, don't just assume the closing mining ship is not a future warping point, keep a distance from belt warp points etc etc.

For me personally its not an issue.

For those who risk stupid things like plex running, multi billion assests in one haul with no provisions for sensible hauling techniques or shiney officer factions modded ships, they deserve what they get.

My view is simply that the risk needs to remain, ganking needs to remain but some steps towards valid retaliation and the discrepency of what gankers can achieve needs to be rebalanced in favour of the industrial.

Being in a corp currently does not afford any protection to a unaffiliated ganker who might have used a trial account just to make a small profit, rinse and repeat. Even more of a problem now with 60 day trials and the increased free training time. And the poor newb who cannot war dec, cannot respond to the avoidance tactics afforded and poor combat abilities.



Interesting fact: It's virtually impossible to gank someone in high sec if they are alert and aware of how the game works.

Arguments like "but mining is so boring that it's impossible to pay attention while you're doing it" are not persuasive: if mining is so boring, why are you doing it? Do something else! There are so many things other than mining that even a fresh-out-of-the-tutorials player can do that there's simply no reason for them to be mining. It's not even the most lucrative - in fact it's actually one of the WORST income streams available to hi-sec players.

And yes, it's appallingly easy to gank someone in hi-sec if they're AFK and have never bothered to try to find out how EVE works, but in all honesty, so what? Why should we even try to balance EVE around a minority of lazy self-inflicted ignoramuses?


Totally agree, afk, blast away.

Sorry the fact that mining is underpaid is not a valued argument to not do it, a valid argument to make it more competative perhaps.

Its also comparitively easy to ambush someone even attempting to do so. As in you can't d-scan the opposite side of a gate. You can't d-scan from inside a station. You don't know who is around. Spies watching others and using bait, cuckoo tricks are clever tactics used these days. It can pratically make it impossible to even move around. As if the ganker wants to get you in transit and chooses to tough. Its far too easy for the predator on this one in my view. Even WTZ is not neccesarily an answer these days with Sebo's. Even BC's with the right fit can pop a cov-ops before transit with the right fitting.

I really would love to see the discrepency of assests gained to lost from suicide ganking however in a bigger picture. It would help to have a more clearer picture than just individual scenarios.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#138 - 2012-01-30 12:55:09 UTC
Alex Sinai wrote:

Like salt makes food more tasty. But put too much of it and you throw the dish out. I would not imagine eve without gankers or flippers. It would be terribly boring for newbies too. But there must be way more balancing to flipping and especially ganking mechanics.


No, people just need to learn to not be stupid.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#139 - 2012-01-30 13:12:26 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I've already done the math on the profitability ganking Exhumers with T2 fit Tornados.

These figures are averages, based on current Intact Armor plate prices, building the Tornados yourself off of a BPO, and assuming around 4M/T2 Arty and a 50% drop rate.

Kill one Mackinaw, you take a 25M loss. (rare - only happens when you blow it, shank a shot, fumble your rampage)
Kill two Mackinaws, you make a 15M gain. (dead easy)
Kill 3 Mackinaws, you make a 55M gain. (also, quite easy)
Kill 4 Mackinaws, and you get around 95-100M. (not hard, but sometimes you need to waste a Hulk instead of 2x Macks - or bots randomly warp off to unload....)
Kill 5 Mackinaws, and you earn 140M or so. (anything more than 4 takes some skill, fast lag-free internets or working in 0.5 space)
Kill 6 Mackinaws, and you can earn 180M+.


There seems to be this idea that ganking Exhumers shoudn't be profitable. I don't get that. Mining is profitable (well, kinda) - so why shouldn't ganking miners be profitable? I've gotta have 450M ISK/per account to pay for my PLEX. Takes me like a whole afternoon of killing Macks to earn that much. Its a real chore sometimes....

@Shazzam, or whoever is the guy arguing with Tippia for two pages: You seem not to like the idea that you can kill 220M worth of hulk for 10M worth of dessies - or 660M worth of Hulks for one 60M Tornado.

I guess the question is:
What would be a 'fair' rate of exchange then? You seem to think that miner-gankers should not allowed to profit from their trade. Further, it seems in your world - dessie gankers losing 10M/gank is insufficient, so I guess the question is:

In your fantasy: How much ISK should the gankers be 'required' to pay in order to kill an Exhumer? A hundred million? Two hundred million? 500 M? What figure would make YOU feel better about losing your Hulk? What do you consider fair?

Just remember: in EVE, 'fair' has very little to do with it.
Hell, in a more 'fair and equitable' world, you might even stand a chance in an argument with Tippia.Roll


I honestly don't know.

What I'd like to achieve i suppose is a measurement of equality for income generation within the two roles. But how the hell you fairly measure that holistically and make it comparable I really don't have complete the answer to. Thats what I pay CCP for.

The idea that gankers can buy a plex in an afternoon, doesn't really make it attractive to afford to do other things does it. And I simply don't want to advocate that everyone in EvE should therefore be a ganker. It kind of doesnt work out logically. And I'm sorry, if your saying the only way to get ahead in the game is to be a criminal and your being a mug enjoying other stuff, then EvE isn't viable for promting the other stuff.

(Also I dont really want to bring and emphasis towards a reality argument into it about crime prevention as it is a game after all).

Hence why my argument boils down to an equation of assest discrepancies. And how easy it is to ruin someone elses day. But it might not be the bigger picture of course.

e.g. Miner 1, could not be untouched for five years and earn whatever. No risk, earning. Infinate pleasure.

Miner 2, could be ganked 10 times in the first two months and have to plex simply to keep themselves interested in the game. Bordering on biomass, bb I'll go play WoW.

Somewhere between these two extremes there is a comparable factor of genuine content.

Taking some step to at least empower them with retaliation methods might add some fun. Might just be simply compounding the problem further in theory with the assest model. Especially if they lose out in the retaliation or have to pay someone anyway. But when criminals can simply corp hop, drop, jump into insignificant newbie ships when chased down, be an NPC corp so you can't war dec them. It kind of makes the aspect of trying to get even moot and detracts from the fun of the game.

Leaves you with a view: "Your a miner your role is to take it up the ******* for the sake of everyone elses fun"
Alex Sinai
Doomheim
#140 - 2012-01-30 13:12:37 UTC
Baltec1 we argue for ages on these forums and not once you suggested anything, just all denials and not a breeze of fresh air from you. Offer something creative or beneficial to anyone and don't say Eve is perfect. It's far from it and that's a good thing.

Don't let them fly safe!