These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

First post
Author
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2011-11-06 14:45:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Finally, suicide gankers need to choose their targets with at least the tiniest degree of caution.

Hah hah! So many suicide-ganker tears in here!

Awesome, EVE is realistic now!

High-sec is meant to be safe! I'm glad CCP changed this.

High-sec is dangerous, and finally suicide-gankers are no longer spoon-fed ISK.

Now CCP just need to make CONCORD pre-empt suicide ganks, and destroy the ganker before they can even get a single shot off.

Miners 1 - Gankers 0

So many ganker tears! I'm sorry that your :elitepvp: is now a dead end! LOL!

Oh no, all the killmail whoring suicide gankers are crying. Somebody call the whaaaambulance.

There sure are a whole lot of 'hardcore pirates' behaving like little children in here.

Finally, the IWIN button of EVE is gone.

/inflammatory comments
Excellent explanation for why this is a very bad change that hurts the game.



I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia, nectar of the Gods! It is sweet. Oh, so sweet!

I'm not going to say you're wrong Tippia. I respect your opinion to much to do so. However, I'll simply disagree.

This doesn't change the ganker's ability to gank the same targets they've been ganking all along. So, from a capability perspective, this changes NOTHING.

At best it's a motivational change. From what I've seen all these gankers "teaching" noobs to properly fit their ships were very adamant that they were doing these guy's a favor. So if they still feel that way, go ahead, gank away. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Oh wait, were you doing it because it as financially viable? Then perhaps you weren't doing Eve the favor you told everyone you were.

Don't ban me, bro!

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#242 - 2011-11-06 14:59:22 UTC
Kyneska wrote:
I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord.
It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave.

And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec — completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case.
Mr Kidd wrote:
I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia
We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the day…
Reislier
#243 - 2011-11-06 15:08:19 UTC
Well it needed to be changed.. either lose the bogus insurance or change the name to bonus and keep it.

It's curious that people just can't seem to call a spade a spade in this game.

Be nice. If nice not work, be civil. If civil not work, beat with iron pipe till bloody and still.

Darrow Hill
Vodka and Vice
#244 - 2011-11-06 15:51:28 UTC
Meh.


The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.

The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.


CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#245 - 2011-11-06 16:06:29 UTC
Tippia has to much free time out of game that I wonder if an account isn't kept active just to troll the forums. Think I am only up to page 5 so far, only gone from the boards for 10 hours and wow did this turn into a threadnaught I didn't see before I left.
Tippia wrote:

We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.

Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee? Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the miner looses everything in the hull (cause insurance doesn't even come close to what a hulk is priced at). If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other? Oh wait....this new insurance change will only curb rampant destruction not stop it. It just makes the aggressor think "Is it really worth it?" before they pull the trigger cause being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping, now the ganker pays the full amount and will have to find more valuable targets instead of padding killboards with cheap losses.
yumike
Doomheim
#246 - 2011-11-06 16:08:32 UTC  |  Edited by: yumike
Darrow Hill wrote:
Meh.


The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.

The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.


CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.



Pretty much this, It's already ridiculously easy to suicide gank casually in highsec (with a bit of ratting the sec status comes back relatively quickly) and make good coin doing it.

It's a much needed change for the new BC's that do BS-like damage for bc-like cost. It's already easy to pop most pve ships with one or two t1 bs's, to move that threshold down to bc's and to still be fully insured is craziness.

Tippia wrote:

We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.


You don't suicide gank much do you? Admittedly I haven't for a few months now, But it's all I did most weekends for about a year and it was retardedly easy to make good money doing it.

Few people do it more likely because it's a pain in the ass to repair your sec status constantly. (The best way I found was to get several L4's with BS spawns in systems around you, 3-4missions is best. leave them active and do a 'roam' every 10 minutes, kill one let it respawn at downtime rinse repeat, finish missions on friday and gank the weekend away.)

The isk change is meh, My insurance payout never mattered when I had 5 or more pre-fit ships already sitting in station it was just free money and will continue to be. This change makes perfect sense..

Now we need them to remove insurance from self destructing so we aren't losing freighter/capital/supercapital kills when they know they are screwed :)
Ann133566
Doomheim
#247 - 2011-11-06 16:11:11 UTC
As long as we can target and shoot at eaxh other in hi-sec, suicide ganking is here to stay.
Ann133566
Doomheim
#248 - 2011-11-06 16:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ann133566
srry about the double post.Oops
Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2011-11-06 16:20:51 UTC
Let's play the penis-game.

I'll start:

(/Me whispers) penis.

Ni.

Kyneska
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#250 - 2011-11-06 16:22:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyneska
Tippia wrote:
Kyneska wrote:
I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord.
It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave.

And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec — completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case.
Mr Kidd wrote:
I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia
We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the day…


I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings. I disagree with you about concord. I think 0.0 would rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord.
Nam Noissim
Red Lobsters Unilateral
#251 - 2011-11-06 16:35:52 UTC
Insurance fraud is a real thing, and even in our internet spaceship game the RP part of your brain has to think the corps/orgs/whatevers that are doing insurance for these ships would *have* to be getting pissed off about constantly losing money to these suicide gankers. I mean...think about it in RP terms,
"Thanks for the 10K isk sir. Fly safe!"
*gets blown up*
"I'll take that 11M isk payout please."
"It's your 30th one today...we are in the hole 329.7M. Anyway, here are your funds. Fly safe!"

You get the idea. I approve this RP element.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#252 - 2011-11-06 16:45:43 UTC
Kyneska wrote:
I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings
What are you referring to here?
Quote:
are you honestly saying that the blob wouldnt rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord.
For one, the blob already runs rampage all over empire… or at least over most of empire. For another, those 0.0 blobs are in 0.0 for a reason — that reason doesn't exist in empire space, much less in highsec, and there are other mechanics in place to ensure that they can't blob in highsec the way they do out there (most notably when it comes to things like tactics and ship choice).

All CONCORD does is ensure that if/when they come to highsec, they have to pay the same aggression fee as everyone else.
Renan Ruivo
Hengetools Consumer Products S.A.
#253 - 2011-11-06 16:54:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?


Tamriel's.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#254 - 2011-11-06 16:56:39 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee?
It shouldn't, nor is it. The difference between the two is how they approach ensuring that safety for themselves.
Quote:
Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the miner…
…is also safe from total loss. It's inherent in the system.
Quote:
If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other?
Seeing as how the ganker can be stopped just fine, I don't quite see the point in this hypothetical situation. You're painting a scenario that does not correspond with the reality of the game. The ganker can keep on ganking until stopped just like the miner can keep on mining until stopped.
Quote:
being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping
So make him wrong. Stop him. Make sure that -10 status comes at its proper price. Make use of those kill rights. If there is an unwarranted amount of safety for the ganker, it's because the victim chooses to make it so.
yumike wrote:
You don't suicide gank much do you?
I don't suicide gank at all, so no, not much…
Kyneska
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#255 - 2011-11-06 16:56:56 UTC
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?

this. gameplay prespective. I think you mean gamemechanics and you say you dont. i belive you, im not very good at forum.

if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care.
Renan Ruivo
Hengetools Consumer Products S.A.
#256 - 2011-11-06 17:00:23 UTC
Destroyers get buffed, and gankers get a nice little toy in the Tier 3 bc's that have a bigger volley than some bettleships.

On the other hand, insurance for concordokken ships is removed.


Working as intended.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#257 - 2011-11-06 17:04:06 UTC
Kyneska wrote:
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?

this. gameplay prespective.
That was in response to LCO's “from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?”

And no, it's gameplay, not game mechanics: its the gameplay that (supposedly) needs to conform to some measure of realism — the game mechanics do not. They're just there to generate that gameplay.
Quote:
if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care.
Ok. Ugh
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#258 - 2011-11-06 17:09:04 UTC
oh no i'm sure this will cease our reign of terror

return to the belts, worthless peasants

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Zenda Pharedi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#259 - 2011-11-06 17:23:21 UTC
we need concord to protect the newbies, or certain d***less pirates would be camping noobstations in t3s with logi backup. that kills eve. and no, suicide ganking is not coming to an end.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#260 - 2011-11-06 17:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Even if this is all true, I don't think it's going to affect gankers very much considering several factors:

1. Who is paying and how much for certain ganks (don't forget prizes).

2. Dessies getting some love. Therefore ganking with these things will be easier.

3. How often your survive a gank. The more you survive ganks, the more likely the gankers will want to kill you just for the hatred that they have towards you. At this point, you'll have to make sure you have enough ISK to cover the loss of your mining ship because they're not gonna care for one second how expensive their next attempt will be.

EDIT:

PS: This could be a good opportunity to take advantage of ammo/ship production.

Adapt or Die