These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pros and Cons of Suicide ganking.

Author
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#101 - 2012-03-03 22:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
D'Kelle wrote:
Ninyania alCladdyth wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Ninyania alCladdyth wrote:
.


Im not too clear on this either.Ugh
We as -5 and below understand that having such a low sec status, opens us up to being shootable anywhere any time. This includes pods. One of the reasons we run through empire in pods, isn't due to them not being shootable, but simply because they insta warp.


Sorry for seeming so dense... I've been having a problem finding a clear-cut statement on whether or not Outlaw (-5 sec and lower) pods were "fair game" - every other thread I've searched out and read through made it sound like pod-kills always invoked a security status drop, and then de-evolved into carebear-vs-pirate flamewars before actually *answering the question*.



just keep a few cheap alts to suicide podkill the bas*ards then recycle your throwaway alt char. keep em in an npc corp with no link too you just like they do.

This is bannable (alt recycling).
Serene Repose
#102 - 2012-03-03 22:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Suicide missions of any sort should be a last resort. The gain should accrue to a general benefit to whom the operative represents, but the operative should gain no benefit from the act. An example from history would be Japan's lack of anti-tank landmines. To overcome this, they placed soldiers in chameoflaged holes on roads, with a howitzer shell and a hammer. Tanks drives over hole. Soldier hits shell with hammer. Tank disabled or destroyed.

The victim loses something. The Japanese army gains only in not having to face the tank. The soldier loses everything but the supposed appreciation of a grateful nation. Don't go squawking about this isn't real life. Take the idea to another extreme in EVE. I suicide gank a station, my corp salvages and loots the station, which spews all the contents of all the players with cargo holds in that station. The salvage and loot would pay for a hundred more suicide ships. A corp would be limited only by time.

This puts me in mind of when ship prices fell beneath insurance payout amounts. You could actually make ISK (remember?) by buying ships and SD-ing them for the insurance payout. In a world without rules there would seem to be no problem with this. However, when you want an internal calibration of values, this would be seen as a bulge in the form of the economic ideal.

The other major point would be if you can suicide gank for significant profit to the ganker, there's no point in anyone doing anything else in the game - chokepoint - fundamental design flaw.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.

Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2012-03-03 23:15:37 UTC
use a cheap ship to kill expensive ship
potential profit
if not for profit it makes your killboard look better then when u get killed to badgers.
not for killboards, for tears
not for any of those, just bored i guess

why is it bad? because look at the penalties.
you lose your ship, woopee, it probably worth less then 100mil
security status drop, this is irrelavant if you live in 0.0 or lowsec, can be grinded back up decently fast, and unless they fixed it even -10 people can go to highsec in a pod and jump into a ship to suicide gank people.
isk faucet, as both people get insurance payouts

why is it good?
carrying expensive stuff in cargo requires planning
lolsauce killmails when people lose supercarrier bpos in frigates and stuff.
helps eve economy a bit
mineral sink, minerals to make the ship are lost to make new ones.

what they could do is offer incentives to keep your sec status high.. if you have +5 its about the same is having 0.
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#104 - 2012-03-03 23:27:04 UTC
Looks like you were really scratching to come up with those. Simple pleasures for simple minds.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#105 - 2012-03-03 23:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Serene Repose wrote:
Suicide missions of any sort should be a last resort.
…and the thing (that others have pointed out already) is that it most likely already is. The problem is rather that, after years of security buffs and a complete abandonment of policing various exploits, suicide ganking is the last and only resort. If there has been any real increase in ganks (and I still doubt it on a longer scale, even though February had more of them than January according to CCP) then it's because there's nowhere else to go.

Quote:
The other major point would be if you can suicide gank for significant profit to the ganker, there's no point in anyone doing anything else in the game - chokepoint - fundamental design flaw.
That's part of it, and it kind of follows on the above point: it's not necessarily that ganks pay too much — it's that the alternatives pay too little compared to the effort involved, due to how difficult they have become to set up in the “security creep” that has happened over the years. In addition, this security creep negatively feeds the profit mechanism: the safer people think they are, the more value they put into (or onto) their ships without worrying about it, so the better-paid the ganks become, the more the effort/reward for this kind of piracy goes out of whack…

I still maintain that the best thing that can happen to highsec is to make it much less inherently safe, which requires people to adopt safety behaviour to decrease their risks, which improves their chances to avoid or just plain old survive ganks, which forces attackers to adopt better-planned strategies (that the lower safety level now allows for)…

…and everyone wins (kind of): people are effectively more secure; that security is player-made; more combat options are available for the pirates; and more variety, choice and planning is available to all.

The design flaw is in the increased security, which gives the wrong signals to the victims and which lock attackers into a single tactic, and how these two then keep reinforcing themselves.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2012-03-03 23:45:59 UTC
D'Kelle wrote:
Ah there speaks a typical Goon wanabe just like one of your ah dim witted kindyour compatriot John Zorg who pretends EVE needs ballance that from another Goon wannabe lol yeah and pigs might fly. LOL your'e agroup of dim bas*ards you cant
even aggree amongst yourselves whats good or not for or in EVE.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=832884&

Who attempted rather patetically to answer this my statement shown below.
Sorry bub no matter what you put forward or how eloquently you put it over, most EVE players just wouldn’t trust anyone involved or attached to Goons, you have made your selves a universal pariah to the majority of normal players, so the trust level relating to your group to actually do as to what you so blithely portray would register as -99.9 Goons have stood for too much griefing and other crap in the past to be trusted to being balanced. You have cut your cloth now wear the suit.
Players don’t want an EVE according to the book of Goon

or Goonwaffe whatever that is.

You are not even a true Goon. Just a wannabe Goon trailing along in their great shadow. like some beggar attempting to be what youre not. "Goonwaffe" sounds like some watered down erzats version of the "True Goons".


Can I get a translation of whatever this is into English?

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#107 - 2012-03-03 23:54:08 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Can I get a translation of whatever this is into English?
“Goons are mean”.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2012-03-03 23:56:24 UTC
Actually I just realized that anybody who starts spouting off about what it means to be a "True Goon" is a Xenuria alt.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-03-04 00:16:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Suicide missions of any sort should be a last resort.
…and the thing (that others have pointed out already) is that it most likely already is. The problem is rather that, after years of security buffs and a complete abandonment of policing various exploits, suicide ganking is the last and only resort. If there has been any real increase in ganks (and I still doubt it on a longer scale, even though February had more of them than January according to CCP) then it's because there's nowhere else to go.

Quote:
The other major point would be if you can suicide gank for significant profit to the ganker, there's no point in anyone doing anything else in the game - chokepoint - fundamental design flaw.
That's part of it, and it kind of follows on the above point: it's not necessarily that ganks pay too much — it's that the alternatives pay too little compared to the effort involved, due to how difficult they have become to set up in the “security creep” that has happened over the years. In addition, this security creep negatively feeds the profit mechanism: the safer people think they are, the more value they put into (or onto) their ships without worrying about it, so the better-paid the ganks become, the more the effort/reward for this kind of piracy goes out of whack…

I still maintain that the best thing that can happen to highsec is to make it much less inherently safe, which requires people to adopt safety behaviour to decrease their risks, which improves their chances to avoid or just plain old survive ganks, which forces attackers to adopt better-planned strategies (that the lower safety level now allows for)…

…and everyone wins (kind of): people are effectively more secure; that security is player-made; more combat options are available for the pirates; and more variety, choice and planning is available to all.

The design flaw is in the increased security, which gives the wrong signals to the victims and which lock attackers into a single tactic, and how these two then keep reinforcing themselves.


I wish I could give this more likes. I wish I could paste this on walls everywhere.

I'd love to be doing other forms of ******* with other people than safaris and suicide ganks. Seriously. Fights would be ******* excellent, but there's a whole buffet of **** I'd love to be doing to people but has been nerfed and nerfed and nerfed again. But these is the tools I am reduced to. If you don't like people like me suicide ganking you or awoxing you, then give us something else interesting to do.

Or, as my father once told me 'Son, you can only **** with the **** god gave you.'
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#110 - 2012-03-04 00:21:13 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Suicide missions of any sort should be a last resort. The gain should accrue to a general benefit to whom the operative represents, but the operative should gain no benefit from the act. An example from history would be Japan's lack of anti-tank landmines. To overcome this, they placed soldiers in chameoflaged holes on roads, with a howitzer shell and a hammer. Tanks drives over hole. Soldier hits shell with hammer. Tank disabled or destroyed.

The victim loses something. The Japanese army gains only in not having to face the tank. The soldier loses everything but the supposed appreciation of a grateful nation. Don't go squawking about this isn't real life. Take the idea to another extreme in EVE. I suicide gank a station, my corp salvages and loots the station, which spews all the contents of all the players with cargo holds in that station. The salvage and loot would pay for a hundred more suicide ships. A corp would be limited only by time.

This puts me in mind of when ship prices fell beneath insurance payout amounts. You could actually make ISK (remember?) by buying ships and SD-ing them for the insurance payout. In a world without rules there would seem to be no problem with this. However, when you want an internal calibration of values, this would be seen as a bulge in the form of the economic ideal.

The other major point would be if you can suicide gank for significant profit to the ganker, there's no point in anyone doing anything else in the game - chokepoint - fundamental design flaw.


I totally agree. When you attack someone in Hisec and they concord your ship, its not suicide however. The pilot(s) running the op don't lose their life, they lose their ship.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2012-03-04 11:39:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Can I get a translation of whatever this is into English?
“Goons are mean”.

Thank you for that.
Its our communal duty to aid the uneducated and illiterate :)
Orion Guardian
#112 - 2012-03-04 13:55:40 UTC
You know? You really need just ONE very very true statement and take it to your heart:

Stop being stupid in Highsec and try to be as cautious as nullsec dwellers are:

-> Get into an alliance, or at least a corp
-> Set standings to known suicide gankers to -10, same for anyone who would be your enemy in any way
-> Set up a channel "Intel"
-> If you see a "red" in local: Tell your mates in" intel"
-> If a red enters system with you mining ie: Get safe till he leaves or go to another system!
-> ???
-> Profit, you got your own intel channel, know where threats are, can avoid them and prevent being suicided


DO NOT BE STUPID and transport valuables in easily gankable ships! If LOSING a ship or a fleet of ships just to get a chance to loot it and MAKE A PROFIT then why wouldn't anyone suice it?

DO NOT BE STUPID = BE SAFE!
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#113 - 2012-03-04 15:50:59 UTC
Atticus Fynch wrote:
Well, I read a lot about "carebear tears" yet there is nothing to incite "pirate tears" in EVE. Seems kind'a one-sided. You are either predator or prey in EVE and the predators have the upper hand.

I think that is were the balance is lacking.



Oh, really? Pirates whine about neutral RR, wardec mechanics, etc etc. This thread is just a thinly-veiled cheese and whine fest about how CCP won't protect your self-entitled carebear lifestyle.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc
Cat Scratch Fevers
#114 - 2012-03-04 16:07:35 UTC
Opertone wrote:
IMHO sec status can not be gained by killing NPCs.

Sec status regain - mining in a correctional facility. You'll love care and bears, you'll adapt to society better. Work brings mind in order. People may only volunteer to enter corfac to repay debts to society. Otherwise they never get sec status back.


Awesome troll!
+1

Nothing clever at this time.

Scien Inkunen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-03-04 17:24:50 UTC
Atticus Fynch wrote:
After reading the thread on why people suicide gank, the obvious answer..."because they can"...doesnt really address the question.

Apparently there are advantages and disadvantages involved in doing so.

The question here is, currently with present day EVE mechanics, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? And if so how can it be better balanced so as to discourage it.


Your thoughts/ideas?



Because almost everything is allowed and nobody gives an s**t - it so human, isn't it?

Read the "Fart file" and you will understand the meaning of life !

Cain Blazed
Doomheim
#116 - 2012-03-04 17:36:17 UTC
While i dont mind ganking happening and such. I do feel alot of potential new eve gamers are lost since they easly loose their new mining/industrial ship. Its maybe to easy to kill them?? Roll
Sharptons Hare
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2012-03-04 18:09:23 UTC
I miss my goats.
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#118 - 2012-03-04 19:06:49 UTC
Atticus Fynch wrote:
After reading the thread on why people suicide gank, the obvious answer..."because they can"...doesnt really address the question.

Apparently there are advantages and disadvantages involved in doing so.

The question here is, currently with present day EVE mechanics, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? And if so how can it be better balanced so as to discourage it.


Your thoughts/ideas?


If it is fun people will do it.

Look at how people flog dead horses...

I'm an American, English is my second language...

Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2012-03-05 09:32:47 UTC
Cain Blazed wrote:
While i dont mind ganking happening and such. I do feel alot of potential new eve gamers are lost since they easly loose their new mining/industrial ship. Its maybe to easy to kill them?? Roll


New people aren't flying around in Exhumers.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#120 - 2012-03-05 10:58:16 UTC
Tribalic One wrote:
Smell tears, I do.Twisted

I honestly don't understand why this is such a debate... It's not as if there are massive gank squadrons flying around ganking every hulk or freighter on undock. We are all playing the same game right?! Every ship I undock I know is at risk of being lost.

"Don't fly it, if you can't lose it."

- Some EvE Guy


There aren't, but maybe there should be? Their targets should be Incursions, for obvious reasons.

Hulkageddon, you've 30 minutes to clean out your desk, and then security will escort you from the building. You've been replaced by...Incursion-geddon!

Oh Gods, please, DO EET!!

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.