These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Eve is a game driven by consequences for actions." Not if you're into suicide ganking
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2011-10-24 01:10:39 UTC
basically, you're bitter we can deal with the consequences, while you can't

maybe you shouldn't be so poor you're scratching isk from asteroids

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#82 - 2011-10-24 01:12:41 UTC
Sassums wrote:
I am all for Suicide gankers receiving no insurance for pirate actions.

If they are flagged as a criminal they should not receive the benefits of being a law abiding citizen.

I feel that Concord should also be able to pod the pirates


you're retarded m8

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#83 - 2011-10-24 01:13:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto you… even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to — the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).



That's like saying conform to my playstyle or get out.



People choose to be victims, what bs. Spoken like a true pvper who has little regard for PvE players. Expected more from you Tippia.


Now I'm not intending to be a carebear, but I would not try to force PvP on people that did not wish to participate in PvP. And yes I know the but this is a PvP game but the fact is this community is made up of PvP, PvE and a mix of both players. Because of this you have to find some middle ground acceptable to both extremes of the group. If it's acceptable to them then it'll be acceptable to everyone.
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#84 - 2011-10-24 01:30:34 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?

I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's?
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2011-10-24 01:59:24 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?

I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's?
But I do not think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk

What I would like to see is real risk for the suicide ganker, just as there is real risk for the miner. Currently the 'consequences' a suicide ganker faces can either be completely circumnvented or mitigated. Like I said before, any PVPer worth his salt would admit to that. This isn't some secret.

'Cold and harsh universe' should also have to apply to the bad guys, not just the good.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Vio Geraci
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2011-10-24 02:40:30 UTC
I have a deep unwillingness to place myself in direct competition with other players. Is mining a good activity for me?
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2011-10-24 03:09:50 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?

I still don't understand why you think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk. Why does the ganker's loss need to be comparable to the miner's?
But I do not think miners should be able to gather resources without facing any risk

What I would like to see is real risk for the suicide ganker, just as there is real risk for the miner. Currently the 'consequences' a suicide ganker faces can either be completely circumnvented or mitigated. Like I said before, any PVPer worth his salt would admit to that. This isn't some secret.

'Cold and harsh universe' should also have to apply to the bad guys, not just the good.

But, as has been pointed out to you by several people, the ganker is suffering consequences. Circumventing them would be cheating. Just because you don't think he is suffering enough is irrelevant.
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2011-10-24 03:18:47 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Loss of assets, loss of standings, loss of time, kill rights.

"Loss of assets"
Insurance.

"Loss of standings"
Yes. I'm sure a suicide ganker is devastated over going from a -10 to a... -10.

"Loss of time"
Except that to ill-adjusted kiddies whose purpose is to ruin people's play time that's exactly the reason why they invest their time on Eve.

"Kill rights"
This is the only reasonable consequence to a suicide ganker. I'll give you that. But it still does not address the disparity in quantifiable losses between ganker and gankee.

Quote:
The ganker is worse off
This is utter nonsense and I think you yourself realize this.

Quote:
They refund part of the ship cost. There's still loss.
And again, you're arguing semantics. I'm sure that technically there is still a financial loss however minute (LOL). Again, how much is this loss? How does it compare to the miner's losses?

Quote:
Irrelevant. The question is does a single miner sustain that many losses? Again, the question is: how often does he lose his ship and how much does he earn? What is his cost of doing business. Yes, the ganker loses more ships, but he also earns less… in fact, if he runs about all day long, day after day, then chances are that he's not earning anything at all, which means the miner definitely comes out ahead.
It is not irrelevant. Have you ever mined in high sec? Do you even realize how much a hulk loss would set you back EVEN WITH INSURANCE? Now think about the losses a suicide ganker incurs, and as we did with the miner, consider insurance payout.
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2011-10-24 03:20:49 UTC
Tanya Fox wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Yes, and you do understand that with a nerfed CONCORD, you could do unto the gankers what the gankers do unto you… even more so than what you can now (and you can already do quite a lot, if you choose to — the problem is that people instead choose to be victims, and then want to blame others for that choice).



That's like saying conform to my playstyle or get out.



People choose to be victims, what bs. Spoken like a true pvper who has little regard for PvE players. Expected more from you Tippia.


Now I'm not intending to be a carebear, but I would not try to force PvP on people that did not wish to participate in PvP. And yes I know the but this is a PvP game but the fact is this community is made up of PvP, PvE and a mix of both players. Because of this you have to find some middle ground acceptable to both extremes of the group. If it's acceptable to them then it'll be acceptable to everyone.







You are clearly playing the wrong game. Nobody is "forcing" pvp on anyone. By nature the game brings pvp to the player from the start. The moment you sign into the game you are participating in pvp. There is no such thing as "pve only" in EVE. Eventually people will realize this.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#90 - 2011-10-24 03:22:59 UTC
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM


Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win.

When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want.
Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#91 - 2011-10-24 04:44:13 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM


Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win.

When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want.
Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM


Wait ... there is only one person on this council? I know the chairman has an ego, but is it big enough to call 1 person a council?

Shocked

Roll
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#92 - 2011-10-24 04:56:11 UTC
The consequence are supposed to be player initiated – as in grow some balls and get even yourself.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#93 - 2011-10-24 05:07:17 UTC
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Rocky Deadshot wrote:
so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM


Which wont matter two ***** cause whoever DCF gets together to vote for will win.

When 72% of 0.0 is aligned to vote for one person the rest of the game is pretty ****** for what theyll want.
Oh what glorious tears there will be after the next CSM


Wait ... there is only one person on this council? I know the chairman has an ego, but is it big enough to call 1 person a council?

Shocked

Roll


I know its hard to figure things like this out by yourself so Ill help...

DCF gets to vote for more than one person per CSM election correct?

sooooooo...

each person 72% of 0.0 wants in will GET IN

sooooooo...

noone else anyone wants in will get there cause theyll be outvoted.

So all those people will come qqing to the forums afterwards.

I hope that wasnt too hard for you.

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Naari Talvanis
Doomheim
#94 - 2011-10-24 05:19:48 UTC
Paragon Renegade wrote:
Suicide ganking is part of the game, it's as much the innocent player's fault he died as it is the aggressors'.


In some cases yes. Insane Tengu-pinatas, T1 industrials loaded with PLEX, etc.
But often, no. People are probably gonna list alot of measures to minimise the risk, and I know alot of them, but that's not what's being discussed. When someone is determined to gank your ship, (grief/lulz/revenge) in highsec, there's nothing you can do other than staying docked or overload hardeners and pray at gate. Amirite?

Paragon Renegade wrote:
I've played four months. I've been suicide ganked twice.
Both times the assailant lost more than I did, and I easily replaced all loses with virtually no setback. I had no insurance, because what insurance does is protect your ship which you can easily cover yourself, for a cost. Not to mention it expires. Most gankers don't use insurance to begin with, since it's superfluous, and many belong to an alliance that can screw the pain away to begin with.

Removing insurance from suicide gankers is pointless to the extreme


That's actually pretty frequent in such a short time span. And either you weren't thinking or your gankers weren't,
Guessing the latter since most players don't have that much worth ganking 4 months in.
Also guessing that's the problem, no offense.
Not talking about Tengu-pinatas, but there are some single modules that can, with insurances in the picture, turn a very nice profit for gankers. Hard to earn or find, but easy to rob. Scan ships, forward scout to give warning and a couple of (not even fully fitted) BS's to pull the trigger. Easy. Riskless. And at -10 sec status you've done alot of ganking so... c'mon.. Roll

Rocky Deadshot wrote:
CCP and the CSM are run by individuals that have no interest in changing this... so your only hope is to actually vote in the next CSM for a strong high sec player, so just maybe your voice will be laughed at on the CSM table, instead of on the forums.


This man speaks the truth!
And let's be honest, everyone knows where it's at, it's not even a discussion really.. Lol
Though I'm not too sure about it having no use to complain. Didn't the latest CCP graphs indicate that the majority of pilots (or at least a huge percentage) run missions in highsec? They allready buckled to the pressure of the playerbase once, and rightly so to a certain extent..
I too think that the system as it is right now is laughable.. and griefing made easy one of the reasons new players often get scared off initially..

Khazarn Areth wrote:
And im taking full advantage of this presently Pirate


I've always prefered shaking the hand of a pirate over that of a CEO..
At the very least you know what the pirate has on his hands..
Enjoy man.. Blink
Jooce McNasty
Islefive Consulting
#95 - 2011-10-24 05:30:10 UTC
You want to slow down Suicide gankers? (because we all know it will never stop)

1. Stop making these threads, no seriously every time a see a thread like this I hit a locator agent and see if I can find the OP. Every time you post something like this people will just be encouraged to go out and Gank some more.

2. Maybe take a break from mining for a bit, especially when everyone knows that people are out Ganking in force right now, or Train a combat alt? You know if they are -10 you can shoot them with no consequences.

3. Tank Tank and more Tank, yes pvp pilots fly pure gank ships but really we don't expect to survive long with no tank.

4. Group up! When 3 or more suicide gankers jump on 1 person they are playing the MMO to its fullest. They are using their friends. Get some support. War Dec the Corp/Alliance that is Ganking your or pay some mercs to do it.

5. Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose. I love seeing people cry that we killed their last bit of an isk machine. I don't fly my Faction T3's when I know I cannot afford to replace it. Maybe you shouldn't be flying your Hulk if you sold your other barges and all your minerals to buy it.

6. just incase you missed the first point... STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS THE REASON WE LIKE TO GANK SO MUCH. TO GET A RISE OUT OF SOMEONE IS WORTH AS MUCH AS THE LOOT WE GET FROM YOUR DEAD SHIP..

A insurance change will not stop suicide gankers. They will change tactics bring friends and find another way to do it. This profession is as legitimate as the Ninja Salvager, Scammers, Can Flippers, and Awoxers
TuonelanOrja
Doomheim
#96 - 2011-10-24 06:26:59 UTC
Two years of mining and my hulk is still alive. All I have lost is one mack and I was AFK.

Not a veteran, just bitter..
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2011-10-24 06:45:14 UTC
The honour tank is actually not a decent tank.
ACE McFACE
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2011-10-24 06:50:30 UTC
Alright alright we get it, people don't like losing their ships, big suprise but no need to make ANOTHER THREAD

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Hecatonis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2011-10-24 07:19:55 UTC
i am going to help

Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
But it STILL doesnt change the fact that a suicide gank loss is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than a miner's loss.
And the fact remains that this is completely irrelevant. How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven.


proof one
proof two

as you can see the ganker does loose far less then the gankee.

Tippia wrote:

Moreover, it just reinforces the lesson that the miners refuse to learn: they can mitigate their risk, and if they choose not to, then it's their problem — not an issue with the mechanics surrounding ganking. Their bad decisions do not make the game unbalanced.


this seems uninformed please see attached quote
Weaselior wrote:
also the best-fit hulk can be taken down by three brutixes easily


gank ship, concord kills your ship, gank pod, concord kills pod. seems fitting. poetic even
Rutger Centemus
Joint Empire Squad
#100 - 2011-10-24 07:57:14 UTC
Hecatonis wrote:
i am going to help

Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
But it STILL doesnt change the fact that a suicide gank loss is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than a miner's loss.
And the fact remains that this is completely irrelevant. How much does the miner earn between each loss? How much does the ganker earn between each loss? Your fact assumption is that the miner loses ships faster than he can earn them and/or that the ganker has a significant profit. This has yet to be proven.


proof one
proof two

as you can see the ganker does loose far less then the gankee.

Tippia wrote:

Moreover, it just reinforces the lesson that the miners refuse to learn: they can mitigate their risk, and if they choose not to, then it's their problem — not an issue with the mechanics surrounding ganking. Their bad decisions do not make the game unbalanced.


this seems uninformed please see attached quote
Weaselior wrote:
also the best-fit hulk can be taken down by three brutixes easily


gank ship, concord kills your ship, gank pod, concord kills pod. seems fitting. poetic even

You do realize your 'proof' is rather worthless, as quite a few people don't generally post losses. Most killboards, be they private, corp or alliance, are set up to ignore losses to npcs (rats, Concord)...

Insurance will cover part of the loss, but will never cover the entire shiploss (let alone module cost) unless prices drop significantly without insurance getting altered to reflect these lower prices.