These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should Ganking be profitable?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#401 - 2013-03-23 03:12:22 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
I don't think anything should be changed as such. Ganks should always occur and be profitable. However, I would favor a more severe penalty on the ganker. He can gank, but his sec status should drop dramatically. You can gank, sure, but then you know your sec rating will drop that much that you'll be busy ratting for a few weeks in low and null-sec before you can do it again.


The current sec status penalty is fine. You now get the same sec status loss whether the target loses a ship or not, since it's front-loaded rather than dependent on the result. Plus, kill rights are no longer something you can simply laugh off, and bounties can't simply be claimed by podding yourself with another character.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#402 - 2013-03-23 03:21:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Because we aren't talking about the most detested of all combat effects — stun.


ECM is more a "silence" mechanic, rather than a "stun" mechanic. There is a subtle difference: when silenced you can still defend yourself, flee, or use non-vocal attacks such as drones or smart bombs.

From what I can see, the main reason ECM is so hated in EVE is that the people getting jammed feel emasculated when they can't shoot their load of ammunition into space.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#403 - 2013-03-23 04:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
I don't think anything should be changed as such. Ganks should always occur and be profitable. However, I would favor a more severe penalty on the ganker. He can gank, but his sec status should drop dramatically. You can gank, sure, but then you know your sec rating will drop that much that you'll be busy ratting for a few weeks in low and null-sec before you can do it again.


Cool, even more incentive to use dedicated Gank alts for ganking. Pirate

And, as always, negative incentives best incentives, amirite everybody?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#404 - 2013-03-23 04:34:23 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?

Maybe because it is too easy. Compare how complicated it is to manufacture T2 items - from getting moon goo, to protecting moons, to reactions, to invention - with how easy it is to loot a wreck. Or take officer items and how rare they are, and when they drop does it need only little repair if any at all and it is like new.

It would not hurt the game if the 50% drop chance would get replaced by something more complex and fun. People often point out how stupid WoW is and then they get all sparkly eyes when they seeessz preccessioussz lootszz.


White, I feel certain it wont make a difference as to any point brought forward. As always, should anyone choose to have a view or opinion that differs from their own they will do in this thread as they have done in every other thread that goes against their skewed point of view which is try and trivialize any and every thing they can.

It seems they are more comfortable arguing obtuse points in an attempt to derail the thread rather than acknowledge any validity in any thing you may offer.

At first I had thought to continue to ignore them but after thinking about I think I shall continue to state my opinion and continue to bring to light that ganking for profit is an area of the game that needs addressed.

The longer it goes perhaps the more attention it may receive.
Alara IonStorm
#405 - 2013-03-23 04:38:41 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

The longer it goes perhaps the more attention it may receive.

Here is hoping it goes on forever.

Or at least until players learn to tank their ship and be careful about over stuffing it with goodies.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#406 - 2013-03-23 04:40:08 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
At first I had thought to continue to ignore them but after thinking about I think I shall continue to state my opinion and continue to bring to light that ganking for profit is an area of the game that needs addressed.


Why?

Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#407 - 2013-03-23 04:52:20 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
On the contrary, I love it when a potential victim makes my job that much more difficult.

Let us change the game so that it is always difficult. You would still be able to rob people and you would love it much more.

If CCP could patch stupidity, they'd be omnipotent deities. Ganking isn't a game balance problem, it's a social problem.


I disagree. If ganking was not motivated by profit...which if you look at claims that retriever ganks are at a all time low, then people would still be ganking retrievers. Since people have moved on to better targets like the more profitable mackinaw then this shows its motivated by profit.

Profit from a gank is directly tied to balance not social. Again low cost high dps ships killing higher value ships. If this were not the case then people would still be ganking ships like the retriever. This is also why they don’t use 3 tornados to gank a sheet fir myrmidon zero profit to be had.

So this is why you are incorrect in stating it is a social issue when in fact it’s a balance issue.

Hope this helped you come to a better understanding of the issue.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#408 - 2013-03-23 04:54:09 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
At first I had thought to continue to ignore them but after thinking about I think I shall continue to state my opinion and continue to bring to light that ganking for profit is an area of the game that needs addressed.


Why?

Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?


Because it is not balanced. Please see previous reasons given all thru out this thread.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#409 - 2013-03-23 04:59:00 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
At first I had thought to continue to ignore them but after thinking about I think I shall continue to state my opinion and continue to bring to light that ganking for profit is an area of the game that needs addressed.


Why?

Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?


Because it is not balanced. Please see previous reasons given all thru out this thread.


You're right. It isn't balanced. The victim has complete control over the possibility of their ship being ganked profitably. The ganker has no control over the availability of targets which can be ganked profitably.

Of course, that imbalance is how it should be.

Also, you still have never answered:
Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alara IonStorm
#410 - 2013-03-23 04:59:31 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

I disagree. If ganking was not motivated by profit...which if you look at claims that retriever ganks are at a all time low, then people would still be ganking retrievers. Since people have moved on to better targets like the more profitable mackinaw then this shows its motivated by profit.

First off who says Retty's are not being ganked, second why gank Retty's when Mack's have the exact same tank.

Why do they have the exact same tank, because people don't tank them. They are an easy target because people make them an easy target.

Tank the Mackinaws and Mack Ganks would be a drop in the bucket do to the effort involved. If Mack pilots were that concerned this issue it would have been solved.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#411 - 2013-03-23 05:05:00 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

The longer it goes perhaps the more attention it may receive.

Here is hoping it goes on forever.

Or at least until players learn to tank their ship and be careful about over stuffing it with goodies.


I think I shall choose to be as pig headed as some of the others on here who want to argue silly semantics. They seem to think because they have said it is so that it has to be that way. I know this is the internet and everything they say has to be true ...right?
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#412 - 2013-03-23 05:23:47 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

I disagree. If ganking was not motivated by profit...which if you look at claims that retriever ganks are at a all time low, then people would still be ganking retrievers. Since people have moved on to better targets like the more profitable mackinaw then this shows its motivated by profit.

First off who says Retty's are not being ganked, second why gank Retty's when Mack's have the exact same tank.

Why do they have the exact same tank, because people don't tank them. They are an easy target because people make them an easy target.

Tank the Mackinaws and Mack Ganks would be a drop in the bucket do to the effort involved. If Mack pilots were that concerned this issue it would have been solved.



Not true. I fit my Mack for tank for several reasons. First it cost more as a tech II ship and I know it is more likely to be looked at by gankers.

Second I don’t want to have to replace it should they decide to try and gank it. I do know that should I get caught by a gank fleet that how I fit my ship will be irrelevant. They will throw ships at it till it implodes. I can only hope I fit it to where they did not make a profit.

My retriever I could care less really. I fit for yield mainly because it cheap and easy to replace and not profitable any more to gank.

Last here is where you guys need to cover your eyes and stop reading. Prior to the barge change a single Catalyst could do the job. OMG they seen it as a BALANCE issue and adjusted.

Same holds true for other ships as well. These ships can be ganked by low value high dps ships minimal training effort skill. Risk/effort vs. reward. Same Balance issue different part of the game.

Again all this ties in to hi-sec which opens up a plethora of other topics and debates and opinions and concepts and mind sets.
Tesal
#413 - 2013-03-23 05:24:18 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

The longer it goes perhaps the more attention it may receive.

Here is hoping it goes on forever.

Or at least until players learn to tank their ship and be careful about over stuffing it with goodies.


I think I shall choose to be as pig headed as some of the others on here who want to argue silly semantics. They seem to think because they have said it is so that it has to be that way. I know this is the internet and everything they say has to be true ...right?


The final word is from CCP. They do what they think is best for the game. I don't see the changes you want on the horizon, they aren't discussing it at all. That's the reality. You can be as pig headed as you want, but you can't make reality go away just because you choose to ignore it.
Alara IonStorm
#414 - 2013-03-23 05:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

Not true. I fit my Mack for tank for several reasons. First it cost more as a tech II ship and I know it is more likely to be looked at by gankers.

Second I don’t want to have to replace it should they decide to try and gank it. I do know that should I get caught by a gank fleet that how I fit my ship will be irrelevant. They will throw ships at it till it implodes. I can only hope I fit it to where they did not make a profit.

My retriever I could care less really. I fit for yield mainly because it cheap and easy to replace and not profitable any more to gank.

So you fit your Mack like 90% of the Macks not ganked, no problem there. The Retriever you said is not profitable to gank. Problem solved. You fixed it with no changes needed.

Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

Last here is where you guys need to cover your eyes and stop reading. Prior to the barge change a single Catalyst could do the job. OMG they seen it as a BALANCE issue and adjusted.

Same holds true for other ships as well. These ships can be ganked by low value high dps ships minimal training effort skill. Risk/effort vs. reward. Same Balance issue different part of the game.

Again all this ties in to hi-sec which opens up a plethora of other topics and debates and opinions and concepts and mind sets.

I need to cover my eyes because you already covered yours, first page.

Alara IonStorm wrote:

I never liked the Procurer and Skiff update for this reason. I said that they should have gotten 150-250 Grid for Large Shield Extenders instead of base huge HP so people would have to fit the tank.

I also wished that the Covetor and Retriever got 3 Mids, the same T1 to T2 Mid Slot Ratio as the Procurer to the Skiff to fit a small tank + min scanner.

It is the players prerogative to make ganks unprofitable as long as the ship is balanced which is what CCP is trying to do. There is nothing wrong with CCP shoring up a weak ships stats to make it more defensible, but it should be up to the players to defend it effectively.

I was an early supporter of the Cruiser buff, the Barge buff and have made threads about a Industrial Buff. I am not against better tools, just protecting ships that tools fly poorly fit and overloaded.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#415 - 2013-03-23 06:06:55 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

The longer it goes perhaps the more attention it may receive.

Here is hoping it goes on forever.

Or at least until players learn to tank their ship and be careful about over stuffing it with goodies.


I think I shall choose to be as pig headed as some of the others on here who want to argue silly semantics. They seem to think because they have said it is so that it has to be that way. I know this is the internet and everything they say has to be true ...right?


The final word is from CCP. They do what they think is best for the game. I don't see the changes you want on the horizon, they aren't discussing it at all. That's the reality. You can be as pig headed as you want, but you can't make reality go away just because you choose to ignore it.

How do you know they aren’t discussing it? You are correct the final word does belong to CCP and they said balance was needed with mining barges and I am sure they will have the ability to look at the other problem areas objectively as they did the barge issue.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#416 - 2013-03-23 06:18:03 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

Not true. I fit my Mack for tank for several reasons. First it cost more as a tech II ship and I know it is more likely to be looked at by gankers.

Second I don’t want to have to replace it should they decide to try and gank it. I do know that should I get caught by a gank fleet that how I fit my ship will be irrelevant. They will throw ships at it till it implodes. I can only hope I fit it to where they did not make a profit.

My retriever I could care less really. I fit for yield mainly because it cheap and easy to replace and not profitable any more to gank.

So you fit your Mack like 90% of the Macks not ganked, no problem there. The Retriever you said is not profitable to gank. Problem solved. You fixed it with no changes needed.

Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

Last here is where you guys need to cover your eyes and stop reading. Prior to the barge change a single Catalyst could do the job. OMG they seen it as a BALANCE issue and adjusted.

Same holds true for other ships as well. These ships can be ganked by low value high dps ships minimal training effort skill. Risk/effort vs. reward. Same Balance issue different part of the game.

Again all this ties in to hi-sec which opens up a plethora of other topics and debates and opinions and concepts and mind sets.

I need to cover my eyes because you already covered yours, first page.

Alara IonStorm wrote:

I never liked the Procurer and Skiff update for this reason. I said that they should have gotten 150-250 Grid for Large Shield Extenders instead of base huge HP so people would have to fit the tank.

I also wished that the Covetor and Retriever got 3 Mids, the same T1 to T2 Mid Slot Ratio as the Procurer to the Skiff to fit a small tank + min scanner.

It is the players prerogative to make ganks unprofitable as long as the ship is balanced which is what CCP is trying to do. There is nothing wrong with CCP shoring up a weak ships stats to make it more defensible, but it should be up to the players to defend it effectively.

I was an early supporter of the Cruiser buff, the Barge buff and have made threads about a Industrial Buff. I am not against better tools, just protecting ships that tools fly poorly fit and overloaded.



No i didnt fix, it no change from me. CCP made the change. CCP made it more balanced in refference to barges not Caldari Citizen 1897289768188.

As I agree people should fit what you call proper many would argue you fit for the mission. Also to move off the barges. Should a mission runner have to fit for pvp because he may get ganked or should he fit for the mission?

Another of the balance issues I have is if you fit your mission ship for its mission then you open yourself up to possible gank. Again a hi-sec balance issue where the ganker is fit for pvp and the pve player is not.

Balance needs to be achieved to prevent exploitation of the PVE/PVP fitting issue.

There are other areas as well in need of balance but we shouldnt cause to many tears at once from the gankers since they are not interested in balance only easy kills.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#417 - 2013-03-23 06:19:35 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
How do you know they aren’t discussing it? You are correct the final word does belong to CCP and they said balance was needed with mining barges and I am sure they will have the ability to look at the other problem areas objectively as they did the barge issue.


That quote was from before the barge buff. They then buffed barges to fix the problem that they saw, and unfit barges are not profitable to gank, and miners have the option to fit extremely stiff tanks.

So, if you're claiming that CCP thinks that there is currently a balance problem based on their statements before the buff, your claim is a bit pants-on-head.

And the question you keep dodging:
Why shouldn't you be able to rob people of their valuables for profit?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Alara IonStorm
#418 - 2013-03-23 06:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:

As I agree people should fit what you call proper many would argue you fit for the mission. Also to move off the barges. Should a mission runner have to fit for pvp because he may get ganked or should he fit for the mission?

Another of the balance issues I have is if you fit your mission ship for its mission then you open yourself up to possible gank. Again a hi-sec balance issue where the ganker is fit for pvp and the pve player is not.

Balance needs to be achieved to prevent exploitation of the PVE/PVP fitting issue.

What unfit mission ships easy enough to wreck to make a profit? Heck even fit T2 it is nearly impossible to make it back. Bling however is Risk territory where a pilot should watch their back.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#419 - 2013-03-23 07:16:21 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Another of the balance issues I have is if you fit your mission ship for its mission then you open yourself up to possible gank. Again a hi-sec balance issue where the ganker is fit for pvp and the pve player is not.


Are faction, deadspace and officer modules necessary parts of mission fits? What, they're not? Then no, you're not a profitable gank target by default.

Also, this "fitting imbalance" exists in every part of the game. It is not, in fact, a problem.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2013-03-23 07:50:45 UTC
Andski wrote:
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Another of the balance issues I have is if you fit your mission ship for its mission then you open yourself up to possible gank. Again a hi-sec balance issue where the ganker is fit for pvp and the pve player is not.


Are faction, deadspace and officer modules necessary parts of mission fits? What, they're not? Then no, you're not a profitable gank target by default.

....because every ganked mining barge has had faction, deadspace and officer modules Roll

Andski wrote:
Also, this "fitting imbalance" exists in every part of the game. It is not, in fact, a problem.

not really. unless PvPers operate in mission area they don't need to fit tanks against NPC.

while any other play-styles force players to keep in mind PvP part.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"