These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP do something about the suicide ganking problem
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#141 - 2012-03-12 13:43:36 UTC
Huuow wrote:
(Except maybe, is there really no way of escaping concorde? Automatical loss is somehow boring...)

There is a trick involving an orca to save a high priced gank ship. I won't elaborate Pirate
Quote:
has to deal with the pimped carebear ships.

Please? I want to have to deal wit pimped carebear ships while flying just about any pvp ship. Twisted

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#142 - 2012-03-12 13:48:59 UTC
Jas Dor wrote:
[quote=Taedrin]Getting constantly scanned is annoying. Not as annoying as getting ganked, but having people constantly take the first step to attack you gets old fast.


STFU.


Crying because someone *almost* attacked you is pathetic.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#143 - 2012-03-12 13:53:52 UTC
Outsource your hauling to Red Frog Freight - They'll take all the risk and move a freighter load anywhere in highsec for about 8mil. You really cant beat it.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#144 - 2012-03-12 13:59:50 UTC
Huuow wrote:
I never understood why people cry so much about carebears and whatever while hanging desperatly on them like parasites, you know unable to live without them...
Fun fact: carebears are not necessary for the game to function.

Quote:
(Except maybe, is there really no way of escaping concorde? Automatical loss is somehow boring...)
No, evading CONCORD is automatically an exploit. There is no legitimate way of doing it, and should you find some quirk of doing it within the current mechanics, it would be considered a bug, and you're back to it being an exploit.

It's an automatic loss because it's simply a mechanic to define highsec: in highsec, aggression costs. You can either pay this cost through a wardec or through the loss of your ship — either way, you have to pay.

Quote:
everything would be fine if those gankers wouldn´t be just throw away alts, so sec status doesn´t really bother them...
Most gankers don't use throw-away alts — it takes too much time to make one that's worth-while for any serious ganking, and there is no need to ditch a low-sec-status character. The low sec status doesn't bother them because people refuse to take advantage of it, not because you they can recycle the characters (and doing so isn't allowed anyway).

If the gankers were forced to start using throw-away alts because people started to mass-murder them as soon as they got below -5, the desired effect would have been reach anyway, since the gankers are now limited in what they can attack.
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2012-03-12 14:02:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Marzetti
Jas Dor wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Jas Dor wrote:
If you can't ship effectively you go from large industrialists spooling up large jobs to little guys moving in a stack of maybe 100 mods at a time. This is not a good thing for an effective low price point.


But it's great for small industrialists and regional market hubs. You're making some very good arguments in favor of suicide ganking.


The problem is that there are two different time frames
1. Industrial job time which is an AFK activity
2. Hauling time, which is an (semi-ATK) activity

Somebody is going to need to haul minerals to the trade hub for the small industrialists. Since this is an atk activity they are going to want to make a certain, inflation adjusted, amount per trip

Small industrialists want a percentage return for tying their isk in an industry job

The problem is that industrialists set the inflation base for the game. Mineral prices will rise to reflect the premium on haulage. Because mineral prices rise, the price of goods rises to meet the profit expectations of the producers. Because prices of goods have risen the hauler will ask more for the next shipment of goods. Rinse and repeat for an inflationary spiral.


The last I checked, minerals need to be at manufacturing facilities for industrialists to use them, not trade hubs. The only reason to buy minerals in a trade hub is that you can buy in huge quantities, which small industrialists don't need to do. You actually pay a premium for minerals at trade hubs, as I'm sure you're aware.

If hauling minerals to Jita becomes less profitable due to ganking, why wouldn't small scale producers actually see a decrease in mineral prices on their local markets?

If I were a small scale highsec producer, I'd consider sponsoring suicide gankers, and possibly getting together with other small scale producers to sponsor widespread ganking along all the main trade routes. In fact, that sounds pretty fun!
Merlin the-Wizard
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2012-03-12 14:05:00 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Cosmos Serendipity wrote:
Sure people will make ganking alts, but thats just eve. As it is null is safer than high sec and doesn't even adress low sec, but with people being banished from high sec, at least after time the population would grow in low waiting to gank high and null sec dwellers as they pass through.


I think you have hit on the core of the problem there. The more rules you make the more overburdened a system becomes. And the more likely you make it that someone will find a way around those rules.

I still think they should remove CONCORD, implement NPC defensive ships that match the capabilities of player ships to defend NPC space (With realistically escalating numbers in the face of a larger threat) and allow corporations to defend their own space. Let the player population defend their own and take control of the sandbox in that way.

But, that's me. I'm a sucker for punishment Lol



Being EVE is a player driven game, what about the idea of adding human players to help Concord in high sec? You'd have to jump through some hoops to satisfy the accepting requirements, then you can fly your own ships, enjoy certain privileges in high sec, including the ability to "call" concord ships [faster than regular arrival time] to help out when "arresting" criminals.

You'd get a flashy designation in local with a nifty title, but that title wouldn't do you any good in low sec or 0.0 as a matter of fact you'd probably be targeted out because of it, and you cannot be in a 0.0 alliance while being in Concord Police Defense Force [or some other jaded nifty moniker]

I think it'd add a new dimension to the PvP scenario in high sec, so you have suicide gankers in jita, but you'd also have a squad of human players ready to pounce just waiting for the transgressors to pull the trigger so they can happily blow them to oblivion.
Holy One
Privat Party
#147 - 2012-03-12 14:16:25 UTC
Empl Tash'cran
Sparkle Motion.
#148 - 2012-03-12 14:19:00 UTC
I once had a guy go GCC on me because he was annoyed I scanned him (had a tracking disruptor on his mammoth (????))

I assume this was OPs alt
Ozzie Asrail
State War Academy
Caldari State
#149 - 2012-03-12 14:19:20 UTC
Why shouldn't 6-12 organised gankers be able to beat a single solo hauler?

A logi or two, perhaps shield and armour resist links or even a set of HG slaves could easily mess them up.

Or just for the lulz how about scouting using a ECM burst frig, if the worst does happen then boom and taste those gankers tears :)
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#150 - 2012-03-12 14:38:36 UTC
What a fun thread!

8/10, Would read again.

Two thumbs up for the OP's whining about being blatantly and merely scanned.





I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2012-03-12 15:00:09 UTC
Wouldn't being actively targeted actually be preferable, because then you can make a nice little list? Hell, I'm gonna roll an alt and start randomly targeting freighters, given the pantsshitting it apparently causes.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#152 - 2012-03-12 15:02:36 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Huuow wrote:
(Except maybe, is there really no way of escaping concorde? Automatical loss is somehow boring...)

There is a trick involving an orca to save a high priced gank ship. I won't elaborate Pirate


actually, that's considered an exploit - if you get a GCC in highsec and manage to avoid losing your ship, the GMs will lay the banhammer pretty quick.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Cynosural Sari
State War Academy
Caldari State
#153 - 2012-03-12 17:40:05 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Huuow wrote:
(Except maybe, is there really no way of escaping concorde? Automatical loss is somehow boring...)

There is a trick involving an orca to save a high priced gank ship. I won't elaborate Pirate
Quote:
has to deal with the pimped carebear ships.

Please? I want to have to deal wit pimped carebear ships while flying just about any pvp ship. Twisted


Yes, Orcas can save a BC or smaller gank-ship from Concord.

Not condoning it, but I reckon if you are killing botters, I don't see anything wrong with fighting exploits with exploits.

*Hypothetically speaking*, I'd say you could probably go about it like this....

1. Orca alt drops a gank-Tornado at a safe spot, then cloaks up.
2. -10 Alt boards Tornado, and warps to target.
3. -10 Alt destroys target, then immediately warps back to cloaked Orca.
4. On landing, -10 Alt ejects, then Orca scoops Tornado into Maint. Bay before Faction Police/Concord lock on.
5. Orca moves to new safe without NPCs around and Cloaks.
6. Rinse and repeat killing new bot every 15 minutes.

Botters are unlikely to petition (nobody to see it) - and bystanders see nothing but a routine drive-by gank.
The Orca is only visible on scans for seconds. Without a petition I reckon its highly unlikely a GM would notice.

Disclaimer: Yeah, I wouldn't do it, as its a violation of EULA.
But A) after I actually SUBMITTED petitions and reporting the same botters for months and months and seeing nothing done - doubt rule enforcement is high priority for CCP. (I've heard rumors of bans being handed out, until I see some ice-bot families disappear its merely a dog and pony show for Fanfest.)

and B) CCP has stated that even botters are getting three strikes, (if anything at all) - so I wouldn't worry about getting much more than a warning or a temp ban.

***Alternatively, a perfectly legal variation to save costs on ganking: (I DO condone this, BTW, as it is *not* an exploit)

T2 Fit a Tornado, gank, fly to Orca - then 'unfit' the 1400MM T2 guns into the Orca's corp hangar before Concord arrives.
Don't bother wasting time with the fitting window: just quickly drag and drop mods directly from the UI to the Orca Corp Hangar.

Each gun saved is 4-5M ISK and you can do this even while locked down and neuted by Concord.
Then bolt those T2 1400MM Arties directly onto a brand new hull. Twisted
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#154 - 2012-03-12 17:42:40 UTC
Cynosural Sari wrote:
[Not condoning it, but I reckon if you are killing botters, I don't see anything wrong with fighting exploits with exploits.





Except two wrongs don't make a right.
Valentyn3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#155 - 2012-03-12 17:55:56 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
Cynosural Sari wrote:
[Not condoning it, but I reckon if you are killing botters, I don't see anything wrong with fighting exploits with exploits


Except two wrongs don't make a right.


In most circumstances, no they don't. But as he said, CCP drags their ass like every MMO company when it comes to bots and the longer they are left alone the more damage they do and the more people start to use them. Now if they had a time limit on npc corps that forced botters to make a war decable corp then it would be easy peasy to kill them but as it stands there isn't much that can be done except for concord workarounds.

I don't always use hax. But when I do, it's because I'm an NPC.. http://i.imgur.com/PUZou.jpg
Cynosural Sari
State War Academy
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-03-12 18:01:41 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
Cynosural Sari wrote:
[Not condoning it, but I reckon if you are killing botters, I don't see anything wrong with fighting exploits with exploits.





Except two wrongs don't make a right.


True. But its all just SISI theorycrafting, so whatever.

Really, its best left to the individual ganker to decide if using Tornados in such a fashion to kill botters violates their personal ethics.

Oh, and up to CCP to fix their game mechanics.

Still waiting on them to fix the magic 'unscannable, unlootable Orca Corp hangar', but I guess they are stlil too busy nerfing insurance and effective sec-status repair methods.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2012-03-12 18:13:04 UTC
the problem is for the victim is its too easy for gankers. Far too easy...

However its far too difficult for CCP to police. You cant just attack people for loitering so to speak. Concord cannot take action until the aggression has been made. Same in real life. I mean CCP could add more EHP to freighters ( haulers there is no point). But would that really help? well maybe they would have to add quite a bit to help. Effectively making Concord kill them before they have a chance to kill you, in the meantime train up for covert transport ships.

Also dont go to jita... got to hek or rens to buy and sell stuff as well

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#158 - 2012-03-12 18:24:44 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
the problem is for the victim is its too easy for gankers. Far too easy...
Close, but not quite.
The problem is that the victim makes it too easy for the gankers.

Quote:
However its far too difficult for CCP to police.
It's not that it's difficult to police — it's that they have no reason to and no interest in policing it. It's quite simply not something that needs policing for the same reason that they don't need to police manufacturing or mission-running.
Daisai
Daisai Investments.
#159 - 2012-03-12 18:37:23 UTC
Tenebrae Syrennis wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Suicide ganking is the result of a failure pvp system in a game which focused around pvp.

Nothing to be changed about the mechanics around suicide ganking, the thing they should do something about is the system around pvp in eve online.



Oh my God! Another one!

Go away, will you.

Bloody Hell...Ugh



Seems thats the only way you seem to be able to defend the current pvp system in this game.
If the current pvp system in eve online is fine and has no problems then i wonder what the deal is all about then concerning next expansion.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#160 - 2012-03-12 18:39:00 UTC
Daisai wrote:
Tenebrae Syrennis wrote:
Daisai wrote:
Suicide ganking is the result of a failure pvp system in a game which focused around pvp.

Nothing to be changed about the mechanics around suicide ganking, the thing they should do something about is the system around pvp in eve online.



Oh my God! Another one!

Go away, will you.

Bloody Hell...Ugh



Seems thats the only way you seem to be able to defend the current pvp system in this game.
If the current pvp system in eve online is fine and has no problems then i wonder what the deal is all about then concerning next expansion.



Functional != Fine

It works, but it needs more work. It's functional, but it's not fine.

I hope we're clear.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom