These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sucide Ganking Needs To Be Removed - Below is why.

Author
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-05-19 17:39:40 UTC
Suicide ganking, and hulkageddon is a player driven activity and with Eve being a player driven game. OP's proposal would totally destroy the premise of the sandbox and the reason why I play.

Also I can see CCP specifically doing this so that economists can study the effects of supply deprivation on an active populace.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/21/real-economist-takes-lessons-from-virtual-world/

I also think that CCP have gotten sick of the low prices on everything and the huge amount of inflation that was rampant in the economy. In short, this is good for Eve and it single handedly has made mining a viable profession.

Also, I've been mining almost a month straight, and haven't been ganked once, but I also live in 0.0. Just saying that there are alternate solutions to your problems, you don't need to change the game mechanics to mine all day.

Gerrick

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#22 - 2012-05-19 17:56:47 UTC
they can remove it if they add another mechanic to simulate risk in high sec. Like a random chance that your ship explodes after a while. Or being able to wardec npc corps.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

xVx dreadnaught
Space Telentics Systems Inc
#23 - 2012-05-19 18:34:01 UTC
You can always do it old school... no one said you need to mine in a Hulk, back when I first joined Eve, the Apoc was the mining ship of choice for most people because you could fit 8 miner II's to it and 5 mining drones.

You can be greedy and use a hulk or you can be safe and use an Apoc... the choice is yours.

On a side note, if you're moving super expensive stuff through hi-sec, have a scout/webber ship for instawarps. Freighters take so long to reach a gate, a webber has plenty of time to warp to the gate, wait out his aggro, jump and check it's clear of nasties.

You could Alternatively take longer routes that don't take you through the popular gank spots. (usually 0.5/0.6 systems) near trade hubs, again, this is not as efficient, but you can either be greedy or you can be safe... again, your choice.
Th0rII
Asgard Empire Wing
#24 - 2012-05-19 19:21:22 UTC
Personally I think if CCP wants PvP in Empire they should make it real PvP. Give Hulks 6 high slots, three for mining lasers and three turrets. This way it is at least real player versus player, not solo ganker versus unarmed ship.
CCP have said many times they want people to fly in groups, but they make destroyers and teir 3 BCs whose sole purpose is killing unarmed ships solo.
Look at hulkageddon this year 9 of the top ten killers are solo killers, but when the miners gripe they get told to find somebody to play with them to protect them.(haha)
CCP removed the warp stability from the freighters just to make it possible to kill them, that's fine but then give them weapons so the pilots have some way of fighting back. Again killing unarmed ships is not PvP. Or remove the freighter and let the Orca be the biggest freight ship in the game. I can at least tank and fit warp core stabis on it, even though it still doesn't have weapons.

I would not mind having concord only go to the belts in 1.0-0.8 sectors for the noobs. In 0.7 and below let the miners etc arm themselves and fight back.

It's a PvP game but huge amounts of players have no chance for PvP because they cannot arm their ships, skills don't do anything for you if you have no chance of using the equipment.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-05-19 20:28:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
This is not to say that every gank is griefing, but the potential is there, and has been abused multiple times before. People have been banned for this.
…but that is not a reason to remove ganking since it serves a purpose and since that potential is not unique for ganks. In fact, you can find the same potential in pretty much any mechanic or functionality in the game.
Quote:
the lack of continued effects of sec loss or the denial of services to people that have -10 in hisec, are a very strange choices for game development.
What's strange about it? It's not meant to keep players out of the game — it's to give other players the tools to go after these pirates and deal with them. There's not much reason to punish the gankers further.

It's entirely in keeping with the sandbox principle: give some players the tools to be annoying (ganking) and give other players the tools to solve this annoyance (free-for-all sec status).


I missed seeing this post before so ill answer it now,

I am not for removing ganking, I am in favor of making it harder. but not so hard that it is not a viable thing to do, how that actually balances I dont know. I would like a Hulk buff (and by extension the mackinaw and skiff too) but how much i am not sure, nor exactly in which way.
I was responding to Corina Jarr who said
Quote:
As for griefing, it is against the EULA, and since suicide ganking is allowed, it is most definitely not griefing. Logic 101.

Some ganking is griefing. not all.

As to -10 in hisec, I was my understanding, which i admit i amy be wrong about, was that -10 players were not to be able to operate with relative impunity and that the way that i described above was not an intended use of the mechanics that were implemented. namely the use of orcas to avoid Faction police and station aggression, for the purposes of ganking in hisec every 15 minutes.

Of course there is reason to punish the gankers further, Their actions go against the idea of hisec, (note, it is not the ideas of the game, but of Faction security space) The more someone is wanted the faster and heavier the response should be, however, there is no differentiation between someone that has ganked once and someone who has ganked every 15 minutes for the past three hours. Their operational impunity comes from being able to enlist the help of nonflagged entities. in getting ships out of an orca or warping to an alt. because of the characteristics of pods they are nearly impossible to catch in hisec and because they are allowed to dock, they can wait the 15 minutes of GCC in safety.
(another note, I dont believe that changing the characteristics of pods for negative security status will do anything good for the game)

Its very strange that ~20 ganks by the same person in the same location doesn't afford any different response then one gank. from the NPC police or Concord responses. the lack of variation for actions taken are a weird choice to me. While it is true that there is a concord response and the gankers ship gets destroyed. That is already his cost of doing his business, much like ammo costs are for mission runners or crystals are for miners.

were these pirates, the -10 hisec operators, disallowed to do anything in hisec, it would force those that go against the "intended" order of hisec into the fringes, much as the wanted men in the world do not open stands in times square.

Mostly what i find weird, is that people with negative security are afforded the same services by good standing NPC's while the faction "government" they are under wish to kill them.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2012-05-19 20:42:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kusum Fawn wrote:
I am not for removing ganking, I am in favor of making it harder.
Why?

Quote:
As to -10 in hisec, I was my understanding, which i admit i amy be wrong about, was that -10 players were not to be able to operate with relative impunity and that the way that i described above was not an intended use of the mechanics that were implemented.
No, they're free to operate with impunity in highsec. Stations don't care and the faction police forces are purposefully designed to be beatable and (easily) evadable. The threat to -10s in highsec is meant to be other players gunning for them.

Quote:
Of course there is reason to punish the gankers further, Their actions go against the idea of hisec, (note, it is not the ideas of the game, but of Faction security space)
No, they don't. Again, the idea of highsec is that aggression comes at a cost. That is all. They are paying that cost. Not paying that cost is an exploit. Beyond that, highsec is freely available to anyone beyond the limits other players enforce (though wardecs, ganks, or just legal hunting).

Quote:
Its very strange that ~20 ganks by the same person in the same location doesn't afford any different response then one gank from the NPC police or Concord responses.
That's most likely because you believe they're there to offer any kind of protection. They're not. They're there to offer punishment (avoidable for the police, unavoidable for CONCORD). Protection is something the players have to create for themselves, in highsec as everywhere else. The “intended” order of highsec is that it's only as safe as you make it, but that you can usually rely on people's miserliness and self-interest to keep them from attacking others willy-nilly.

Pirates are afforded the same services as everyone else because it's not the NPCs' place to restrict them — just to punish them for any crimes they happen to commit while in that part of space (which, incidentally, goes for everyone, not just the pirates). If you want to keep them from enjoying these services, then you have to keep them from doing that. The NPCs have no business butting in on and restricting player-driven world dynamics.

Highsec is not safe. It's not intended to be safe. Pirates are intended to live there. Highsec is simply a place where the pirates have to pay for their targets.
Razgriz Shaishi
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-05-19 22:27:59 UTC
Because enough morons cant seem to comprehend this, it needs to be said again. Concord is different from the irl police in one major way, concord is NOT there to protect you, it is there to avenge you, to punish the person that fired on you. Concord is not in the game to prevent non-war pvp in highsec, it is there to make sure that there are consequences for it.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#28 - 2012-05-20 01:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Let's see what we have so far.

[x] Thread based on a false premise.

[x] Made up statistics claimed as facts.

[x] Purple monkey socks. (post 58)

[x] People still with the belief, high sec is safe. (lol)

[x] Claims of suicide ganking being griefing. (lol)

[x] More proof we were right, when we said the insurance removal just wouldn't be enough for these whine bags.

[x] The clangers. (Including soup dragon.) (post 58)

Edit: Post amended, since the wonderful Skippermonkey has filled the voids.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-05-20 02:12:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Linna Excel
If eve were a more immersive game, given the premise of the high-tech world we are supposed to be playing in, anyone with a sec status of say -5 or whatever would have his financial assets (ISK) instantly raided by concord and anything he had left over in high sec taken as well. Basically the pvper would have to learn to operate without money and barter only for the things he needs.

If the game were more immersive that is. In reality he'd use his alts to get around that and to ferry thing thing he needs to him.


As it stands, concord is mostly there to operate as a minor penalty: you know you are going to lose the ship you are in and that's it.



Mags wrote:
[x] More proof we were right, when we said the insurance removal just wouldn't be enough for these whine bags.


Correct, insurance removal isn't a deterrent by itself and if you have billions in the bank or you can get it from the gank a few hundred million here or there isn't going to be the problem. The problem is most tangible penalties could be avoided.

You could have concord inject a skill loss virus into your pod before they blow your ship up, but I think CCP would find that to be too extreme.
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#30 - 2012-05-20 02:29:38 UTC
This not an idea and belongs in general discussion with other troll threads and serious threads started by morons who are so dense that the rest of us hope for the sake of humanity, that they are trolling.

If you seriously don't get why "making isk in a safety bubble because YOU like it but then using it a competitive environment" is game breaking then I don't know how to help you. For any of these suicide ganking removal "ideas" to be valid, the market would have to be entirely made up of NPC sellers and buyers.

You can actually play this exact game of worthless existence on Sisi right now. Go there and mine/mission away.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#31 - 2012-05-20 02:51:06 UTC
Sandbox
/thread

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#32 - 2012-05-20 03:34:21 UTC
Linna Excel wrote:
If eve were a more immersive game, given the premise of the high-tech world we are supposed to be playing in, anyone with a sec status of say -5 or whatever would have his financial assets (ISK) instantly raided by concord and anything he had left over in high sec taken as well. Basically the pvper would have to learn to operate without money and barter only for the things he needs.

If the game were more immersive that is. In reality he'd use his alts to get around that and to ferry thing thing he needs to him.

Wrong, Concord has no jurisdiction in stations, so they can't take anything. All they can do is blow up your ship. And, like real fictional cops, they do a little as possible. So they won't bother chasing a criminal anymore after the timer is up.

That said... i would much prefer that Concord attack Orcas that supply ships to those that are -5. Just because it would be funny... and somewhat reasonable.
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-05-20 03:44:31 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Linna Excel wrote:
If eve were a more immersive game, given the premise of the high-tech world we are supposed to be playing in, anyone with a sec status of say -5 or whatever would have his financial assets (ISK) instantly raided by concord and anything he had left over in high sec taken as well. Basically the pvper would have to learn to operate without money and barter only for the things he needs.

If the game were more immersive that is. In reality he'd use his alts to get around that and to ferry thing thing he needs to him.

Wrong, Concord has no jurisdiction in stations, so they can't take anything. All they can do is blow up your ship. And, like real fictional cops, they do a little as possible. So they won't bother chasing a criminal anymore after the timer is up.

That said... i would much prefer that Concord attack Orcas that supply ships to those that are -5. Just because it would be funny... and somewhat reasonable.


I'm not saying that concord would do it, but it'd be... practical... to simply deny someone with low security access to the normal financial system and anything in a public station. If it's all electronic, just move a few digits from the offender's bank account to concord's and a few passcodes at a station changed. Still, I was talking about hypothetical response and not one CCP would implement.

Losing security status for trading with an outlaw would be interesting, but also avoidable by jettisoning small amounts of items into space at a safe point and then switching to your PvP char.
Jessica Sweetwater
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2012-05-20 07:41:35 UTC
Okay ive read all of teh replies and first of all thank you for not debasing yourselfs n trolling non stop

Just look at

Ships
Ammo
Modules

Cost?

Then look at Insurance payouts? Barley covers the ship.

The point im trying to make is these people (ccp) need to sort there stuff n decided if eve is a pvp game or a pve/pvp game and act accordingly
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#35 - 2012-05-20 08:00:25 UTC
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
Okay ive read all of teh replies and first of all thank you for not debasing yourselfs n trolling non stop

Just look at

Ships
Ammo
Modules

Cost?

And that has what to do with anything?

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
Then look at Insurance payouts? Barley covers the ship.

It's not supposed to by design. It's intended function is to cushion the loss of T1 ships... not reimburse them.

As for Faction, T2, and T3 insurance... yeah... you want that extra 15 to 20% edge and/or specialty? You pay for it. In more than one way. And this is what keeps T1 ships more or less viable after 9 years.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
The point im trying to make is these people (ccp) need to sort there stuff n decided if eve is a pvp game or a pve/pvp game and act accordingly

With the exception of missions (requesting them and turning them in)... even the PvE stuff is competition-based. So yeah... it's all PvP.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-05-20 09:25:24 UTC
Wait I thought that eve was marketed as a pvp game? Please correct me if I'm wrong with that. Of course if I just wanted pve I would just play skyrim or something similar.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2012-05-20 09:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Linna Excel wrote:
If eve were a more immersive game
…CONCORD wouldn't exist and the police would be player-run.
Quote:
The problem is most tangible penalties could be avoided.
That's not a problem. That's players using the tools at their disposal to shape the world around them, as intended.

Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
The point im trying to make is these people (ccp) need to sort there stuff n decided if eve is a pvp game or a pve/pvp game and act accordingly
It's a PvP game through and through. It has never been advertised as anything else. Their stuff is plenty sorted in that regard.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#38 - 2012-05-20 10:55:56 UTC
Jessica Sweetwater wrote:
The point im trying to make is these people (ccp) need to sort there stuff n decided if eve is a pvp game or a pve/pvp game and act accordingly

EVE is a pvp game. Sure, you can stick to pve stuff. But you'll have to watch your back and there's some chance, that you're out there on your own eventually.

Remove standings and insurance.

Th0rII
Asgard Empire Wing
#39 - 2012-05-20 12:33:40 UTC
Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2012-05-20 13:14:56 UTC
Th0rII wrote:
Even the PvE targets can shoot back. Why can't we?
Good news: you can.