These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ganker Wishlist: Ideas for improving suicide ganking for gankers!

First post First post
Author
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#21 - 2012-03-25 13:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Xen Solarus
Completely disagree with this thread

Gankers are all about risk-free isk, shooting people that they are sure are not going to be shooting back. If you are really into PvP, you should go and do it in low and null, where your supposed to. But then, of course, they shoot back, and you get owned, cause gankers are essentially cowards looking for easy isk, and collecting tears. In an actual PvP engagement, they get Pwned!

Ultimately gankers are harming eve's continued player growth, as high-sec is supposed to be safe for newer players to get to grips with eve's massive learning curve, as well as those players that get enjoyment from eve for doing everything BUT PvP. The continued growth of gankers is just threatening this, forcing PvP on those that have no interest, and preventing people from naturally moving to low and null in their own time. All so gankers can get their exploding ships with no risk to their themselves. Bet it makes them feel awesome!

The only reason gankers do it is because there is no risk. The bounty system is still broken, and their targets are not PvPers, so there is no risk of retaliation. The only risk to gankers is the possibility that they'll kill a target that has less worth than the ships they lose. And this thread suggests even more ways to elliminate this single risk!

Though i don't think CCP will do it, im strongly in favour of improving high-sec security to make the life of gankers more difficult, or better yet, elliminate it completely. Though if the bounty system was fixed, i'd argue that it should be left as it is now, as then at least people would have an avenue of retailation if they are not interested in PvP.

And no, im not a carebear. Lol I find i need to add this to prevent people assuming that because of my stance on this topic.

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#22 - 2012-03-25 13:52:54 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so

Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship.

And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free?

Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking.


Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.
Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-03-25 13:55:30 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Professor Alphane wrote:
Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so

Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship.

And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free?

Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking.


Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.



So I take it you would agree that if anyone breaks the law in high-sec they should be a target for all the white-knights, sounds like a good idea to me.
Professor Alphane
Zombie Surplus
Mildy Unprofessional
#24 - 2012-03-25 14:00:10 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Professor Alphane wrote:
Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so

Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship.

And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free?

Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking.


Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.



Obviously your milage may vary , I just see it as poor development and inability to achieve your aims

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#25 - 2012-03-25 14:00:45 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Professor Alphane wrote:
Sorry no suicide ganking was always an exploit of poorly implemented security, CCP stated High sec should be secure but have'nt until know done anything to make it so

Ganking has never been an exploit. It is a perfectly legitimate way to... convolutedly destroy your ship.

And when has CCP ever said that HS should be safe and care free?

Also, if they wanted to stop all ganking, it would be easy. Set it up so that it is impossible to shoot a player unless aggression has been given. No more ganking.


Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.



So I take it you would agree that if anyone breaks the law in high-sec they should be a target for all the white-knights, sounds like a good idea to me.

Depending on how its implemented, it could work out very nicely.

Though I do like the can mechanics as they are, but I can adapt if things change.
Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-03-25 14:17:43 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:


Anyway, the OP is whining over nothing, as the changes that will end up being added will not make ganking significantly any harder. Unless Concord comes the second aggression occurs (which would be downright moronic), things will stay the way they are.


I am well aware that 'Crimewatch' doesn't hit gankers as hard as methods of high-sec aggression that require 'trickery', like baiting a LVL 4 Mission runner into losing his pimped ISK printing machine.

But CCP is planning a major rework of mechanics related to 'criminal' activity, its important to have some good 'pro-ganker' ideas on the table as well. This is an effort to collect some of them in one place....rather than scattered throughout other ganker vs carebear flamefests.

As far as 'Risk' for suicide gankers is concerned:

Unfortunately, Concord doesn't really allow for a great deal of 'risk'. We know that we are going to lose our ships at the outset, and build them accordingly. I might 'risk' more on ganking ships if I knew there was a chance of survival.

Beyond 'ship loss' however, there is a great deal of uncertainty involved. Ganks fail all the time.

-You may fail to kill the target, and get a big 'lol' in local, and lose the ship anyway.
-The loot you are attempting to steal fails to drop, which costs you ISK and time.
-The loot you are attempting to steal is stolen by someone else, which costs you ISK, time and sucks as well.
-Your -10 ganking alt (and POD!) can be jammed, scrammed, neuted or popped by any bystander, at any point in the process.

And of course, naturally, we generally only punish the carebears that are guilty of gross negligence.
-Failing to tank a 250M Exhumer.
-Hauling hundreds of millions or billions in a T1 Industrial.....AFK.

Most of the carebears, despite posting garbage on here, are probably bright enough to avoid being ganked, simply because they bother to read these forums and (possibly) apply what they learn here to their game.

Here is the important bit though:
I've killed hundreds of Exhumers. You know what I've noticed about my favorite icebelt hunting grounds?

Miners are FEWER.....but those left ARE LEARNING TO TANK!
Its amazing. As a result - have to leave many of them alone, as I don't have sufficient firepower to take them solo. Tornado is good, but can't do everything.

Further, they are ORGANIZING. Doing everything they can to make my life more difficult, warn the 'non-botting' Exhumers in local, and impede my attacks and looting. And I say, good for them!

Its exactly what EVE is about, even in highsec. I'll still smack and local and harvest as many bots as I can, but it keeps me interested because they make it challenging...! Worst thing CCP could do, is just step in and let them all go back to tanking with Cap Recharger II's and mining AFK.
Cauchemare
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-03-25 14:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cauchemare
So here's the thing. Lets put aside the argument of "space d-bags" vs "carebear miners" and focus on the root issue here.

Theres this funny little thing called life experiance that people tnd to pickup as they plod along. You do things, you see the results and then you adapt to improve your results. What you don't do is repeat the exact same thing and presume that physics and reality are going to warp and change to magically give you different results.

Since the beginning of time, people have rated others by their ability to assess a situation, react and adapt for sucess. Its how you separate mouth breathing goobers from skilled and innovative people that you want on your team.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with any particular facet of EvE. Everyone that plays eve has equal opportunity to take their chosen experiance and be more clever than their opponent, to find a new and innovative way to accomplish a task, to get an advantage over others doing the same thing and to profit from what they are doing.

What Herr Wilkus is bringing to the forefront here, is that a trend has started by CCP to make the game easier for bad players and making it more difficult for good players to stand out stay ahead of the pack. Regardless of WHAT your side on this issue. It does not benefit ANYONE for EvE to continue to be dumbed down and become easier for bad players to do better without learning anything ever.

Sure, we may be the unpopular side of the argument here, and i get that. But today its us, tomorrow its likely to be you thats getting their chosen activity nerfed down because someone found a nice way to turn a profit thats someone else thinks is unreasonable, and the death of their innovation takes isk and fun right out of your pocket.

Instead, I call on ALL good players from all paths in EvE who have a lick of sense and pride in their work to turn to these slothful and leechlike terrible players and use CCP's own words...

"If your going to follow us to the top, Harden The F--K Up"
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-03-25 14:25:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Buck Futz wrote:

Here is the important bit though:
I've killed hundreds of Exhumers. You know what I've noticed about my favorite icebelt hunting grounds?

Miners are FEWER.....but those left ARE LEARNING TO TANK!
Its amazing. As a result - have to leave many of them alone, as I don't have sufficient firepower to take them solo. Tornado is good, but can't do everything.

Further, they are ORGANIZING. Doing everything they can to make my life more difficult, warn the 'non-botting' Exhumers in local, and impede my attacks and looting. And I say, good for them!

Its exactly what EVE is about, even in highsec. I'll still smack and local and harvest as many bots as I can, but it keeps me interested because they make it challenging...! Worst thing CCP could do, is just step in and let them all go back to tanking with Cap Recharger II's and mining AFK.


Then I guess Suicide Gankers wont have any complaints about adapting to a situation where they might be at least be equally challenged for their behaviour? Why should they be removed from the adaptation and evolution equation or risk vs reward considerations. You want to prescribe to others how to play yet when the shoe is on the other foot its a complete injustice. Roll

I think the stock answer or appropriate responce in these situations "HTFU" or "Adapt or Die"? Blink
Professor Alphane
Zombie Surplus
Mildy Unprofessional
#29 - 2012-03-25 14:26:26 UTC
Your PVP assumptions fail , thousands of people enjoy this as a PvE game , the top isn't where you think it is

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-03-25 14:28:44 UTC
Usul Atreides wrote:
Again, in something vaguely resembling English please?


Lol

Quote:
But seriously, I don't see how you can tell people what they should be doing or finding fun



And who the hell of an ******* you think you are to say how high sec safety or threat level should be?-gime a break with that old rabble
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-03-25 14:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Aqriue
Buck Futz wrote:
Wall of Text!

Whine moar!. Its not changing anything about the act of ganking itself, its changing the repercussions and adding more risk (I belive Crimewatch will allow moar people to shoot at reds, basicly giving you a more exiting chase). Really, how much risk do you not have to use a really cheap ass ship to destroy a ship in under 10 seconds that cannot even fire back if even given the chance (really, hulk drones are to slow to respond), you warp off and your alt scoops...8 million? in mods, few tens of millions in T2 salvage, and you gain a 200 million worth Km. Dirt ******* cheap

Quote:
A) more convenient.
B) more accessable to younger gankers
C) more profitable.

Destroyer, like 2 days to train. BAM! Start on something weak like a retty, returns about 5 million for 1.5 million worth of investment. Next suggestion please.

Quote:
1. Income for Pod Killer]

Yeah, CONCORD would make a killing off the pods you pop. Charge 5 million for each agressive act resulting in a pod exploding from you guns but they don't shoot your pod and your wallet would shrink really fast if you had a good day.

Awesome suggestion! I second it!

Quote:
2. Orca 'Stealth' Cargo Bay nerf

Working as intended. You can't have everything. You don't see whats in an Orca, but you got every industrial, Transport, and freighter out there as well as any idiot that pimps the **** out of their Marauder / CNR. Enjoy the sec loss.

Quote:
Granted, sounds like you are going to have this 'fixed' with Crimewatch safety condoms for carebears.

To bad you jumped to conclusions when you broke the rubber, cause it is not making it safer. Its making it riskier to you, which means ganking isn't changing at all.

Actually, I would love it if CCP just made highsec 100% totally safe. I wouldn't even care if you deem it "safe" as I just want to AFK a freighter full of expensive **** up and down the Jita Pipe with the intent to just **** people off and cry on the forums "Why CCP! Why can't I shoot it!". It wouldn't happen, but...**** yeah the tears would be awesome.

And I am not positive, but I think the CONCORD deathray is just CCP improving CONCORD without making it total safe. I think the ship will intercept you instead of some tackle frigs landing first, then pop you accordingly. As in, there will still be lag in .5 compared to 1.0, which will reduce the spawns of CONCORD. But this is my thoughts, I always wondered why CONCORD wasn't just 1 ship per player involved followed by an instant boom...instead of dozens of ships of ships comming in waves intercepting every noob who fires by mistake.
Elder Ozzian
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-03-25 14:31:17 UTC
4th one is done by those safetys they mentioned in crimewatch; When you fly with safetys off, you are not asked anything about "are you sure".

I disagree!

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-03-25 14:33:24 UTC
Is this another one of those "Ganking is too hard, make it easy!" threads I keep hearing so much about?

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-03-25 14:37:19 UTC
Buck Futz wrote:


Here is the important bit though:
I've killed hundreds of Exhumers. You know what I've noticed about my favorite icebelt hunting grounds?

Miners are FEWER.....but those left ARE LEARNING TO TANK!
Its amazing. As a result - have to leave many of them alone, as I don't have sufficient firepower to take them solo. Tornado is good, but can't do everything.

Further, they are ORGANIZING. Doing everything they can to make my life more difficult, warn the 'non-botting' Exhumers in local, and impede my attacks and looting. And I say, good for them!

Its exactly what EVE is about, even in highsec. I'll still smack and local and harvest as many bots as I can, but it keeps me interested because they make it challenging...! Worst thing CCP could do, is just step in and let them all go back to tanking with Cap Recharger II's and mining AFK.



They might make it more challenging to you, but you don't really make it anymore challenging to them, not in a real sense anyway. You just make mining upgrades obsolete as they have to use those spaces to tank with and you make it less productive for them. So you actually make a boring task even more boring (I find mining boring, I know some people don't).

For most you add about as much excitement as an annoying insect would.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#35 - 2012-03-25 14:38:53 UTC
Funny thread Lol

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-03-25 14:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Buck Futz
Grumpy Owly wrote:


Then I guess Suicide Gankers wont have any complaints about adapting to a situation where they might be at least be equally challenged for their behaviour? Why should they be removed from the adaptation and evolution equation or risk vs reward considerations. You want to prescribe to others how to play yet when the shoe is on the other foot its a complete injustice. Roll

I think the stock answer or appropriate responce in these situations "HTFU" or "Adapt or Die"? Blink


You seem to have the most well thought out 'opposition' posts here, and its appreciated, even if the purpose of this thread is fishing for good ideas.

Gankers and ninjas have done nothing BUT adapt to changing situations.

-At one time, 'ninja salvaging' was pretty good ISK by itself. Introduction of Noctis (crashing salvage prices) ended it.
So we embraced Orcas and developed a number of tactics/fits which allowed us to bait and harvest aggressive LVL 4 Mission runners. A number of nerfs to the Orca have it on life support, and 'safeties' will probably end it for good.

Suicide gankers have adapted to changes as well.
-2008 Concord buffs severely restricted our options and target profiles, fits were changed to compensate for a halving of Concord Response time, and nerfs to drone mechanics.

-Increased sec-status penalties led to training -10 alts and new Orca tactics for some - and rapid sec-status farming techinques for others. (like target painting NPCs while baiting mission runners.....)

-Projectile (especially arty) revamp re-introduced the 'volley' kill, and incidentally improved our fortunes as the Tempest once again sailed the skies in large numbers. Subsequent release of the Tornado, Blaster Buffs and Dessie Buffs have all provided more tools, though I would argue that those benefits were 'incidental' to ganker use, not intended for us.
After all, artillery was BAD before the projectile update, and anyone casually reading the forums in the last 2 years has probably seen threadnaught after threadnaught about Hybrids and/or Dessies needing an update.

-Insurance removal forced a NEW analysis of costs vs benefits of various fits, as it significantly increased the threshold to make a gank 'profitable'. (Not everyone can afford to gank just for tears......some of us need income too.)
Tactics such as Herr Wilkus's "Tornado Boomerang", and rapid unfitting of mods into Orcas were developed specifically to adapt to the new 'insurance-less' reality, and bring down the marginal cost of ganking as far as possible. (And what are we met with? Carebear crying, locked threads and screams of 'exploit!') Roll

After all, this isn't Vegas. Turning a profit requires discipline and knowing how much your efforts are costing you. We aren't the Goons, we don't get our ships replaced for free.

-Knowing instantly, the EHP/resists of typical tanks vs available firepower.
-Snap judgement of typical cargo values.
-and the ability to execute a simultaneous attack, as you often have to coordinate with others to cover all the bases.

Anyway, gankers/griefers are inherently a very adaptable bunch.
Very much a stretch to compare them to miners and carebears that already have the tools of their survival at their disposal. But die because they fail to use them.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#37 - 2012-03-25 15:04:13 UTC
I feel like I'm reading an article from The Onion.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-03-25 15:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
CCP will likely know the checks and balances here. There is significant evidence previously provided by players to suggest how impacting and profitable Suicide ganking can be, and especially moreseo after crucible.

I'm more concerned about fixing broken systems, adding gameplay and generally trying to make EvE more fun and interesting in the process. My concerns are not to eradicate or detract from the actual Suicide ganking capabilities themselves, So:

For PvP and like to encourage more of it?

Want to validate a potential Career path in EvE with new income potential that is ideally designed as simply a transferance of ISK from one pilot to another?

Actually like situations where ships shoot back and "really" improve your KB resume?

You agree that pilots should adapt to challenging situations in EvE where acceptance of risk is an everyday seperator of those getting ahead on the curve?

Or simply want to make EvE less boring?

Support: Bounty Hunting for CSM7.

If anything the added thrill from this challenge I would hope to seperate the chaff from the wheat in the Sucide Ganking profession which in principal may remove competition. However, I'm not naive to think it will really help to reduce levels of the activity, only provide a missing responce or retaliation to a criminal activity that is ineffectual in the current bounty hunter mechanics.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2012-03-25 15:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Qvar Dar'Zanar
Usul Atreides wrote:
This is EVE - it's harsh. Deal with it.


'And if CCP says it's not, and want to change it, we will whine until it is', you should add.

Funny how "pvpers" pictures their own opinion about what Eve is even above CCP itself.
Usul Atreides
Suddenly Freighters
#40 - 2012-03-25 15:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Usul Atreides
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
Usul Atreides wrote:
This is EVE - it's harsh. Deal with it.


'And if CCP says it's not, and want to change it, we will whine until it is', you should add.

Funny how "pvpers" pictures their own opinion about what Eve is even above CCP itself.


EVE is a PVP based game. Its economy relies upon the destruction of player created assets. Even if you're a miner, you're still participating in/fueling PVP in a way.

I suppose you think that CCP doesn't want its game to be harsh? Roll