These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#441 - 2011-11-07 17:15:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
See post 426 above.
Quote:
That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space.
No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (“free” as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games.
Quote:
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75 [percent] of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that.
There are quite a few ways to slice that number, and you should not that it does not count players
Quote:
Can I have your stuff?
Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#442 - 2011-11-07 17:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
useless ******* forum software Evil
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#443 - 2011-11-07 17:20:17 UTC
I'm gay.
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
#444 - 2011-11-07 17:21:02 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.



Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.

Please remove it as well.
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Victor Fenris
The Rookie Initiative
#445 - 2011-11-07 17:25:01 UTC
Kitty McKitty wrote:
Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.

This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.



Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!

GJ CCP

Victor Fenris

To the victor goes the spoils.... To Victor, not you!!!!

Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#446 - 2011-11-07 17:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Hammond II
Ryllic Sin wrote:
Inbrainsane wrote:
Botters rejoice.


Botters already rejoice, they rent space from alliances, plus of course plenty of "PvPers" use bots, the number of hypocritical nulltards is hilarious.


Mostly known as Goons lol
They have ppl IN CCP and ppl are surprised they get away with it? Lol
Goons have BECOME BoB
so... if Goons won EVE but Goons are the same as BoB were... BoB WON EVE

Victor Fenris wrote:



Ah gankers tears...Sweetest tears! You are right, it is a cold and harsh universe, and it is cold and harsh that you should not get insurance for a gank!

GJ CCP


lol yes. To the qqing:

ADAPT OR DIE

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#447 - 2011-11-07 17:41:25 UTC
Apollo Gabriel wrote:
Insurance for Self Destruct is EQUALLY SILLY.

Please remove it as well.
Insurance for self-destruct is what gives mineral value. Stop being mean to the miners.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#448 - 2011-11-07 17:46:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
useless ******* forum software Evil



PEND Insurance should insure forum posts c/d?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#449 - 2011-11-07 17:47:51 UTC
Kheper Ra wrote:

Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.


I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space.

Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.

Anna Hyperthron
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2011-11-07 17:49:05 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.

After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.

And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.

Can I have your stuff?


in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.

It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.

If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.




Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post.

Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ???

Just cant get it.



EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?



No, its not.
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#451 - 2011-11-07 17:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: The Economist
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time.


I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.

In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification

You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganking gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self

Bye-bye freighter ganking.

High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.

You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.

Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.

You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Pirate


Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. Lol
Jack All'Trade
Doomheim
#452 - 2011-11-07 18:01:34 UTC
The Economist wrote:
I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.

In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification

Bye-bye freighter ganking.

High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.

You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.

Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.

You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Pirate


Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. Lol


htfu or cry some moar
your choice
EnderCapitalG
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#453 - 2011-11-07 18:02:01 UTC
Apollo Gabriel wrote:
Insurance is SILLY.

Please remove it as well.

The Economist
Logically Consistent
#454 - 2011-11-07 18:12:46 UTC  |  Edited by: The Economist
Jack All'Trade wrote:
The Economist wrote:
I made a long, eloquent post about this but it got deleted when I hit post.

In summary: insurance in eve largely makes no sense. It is thus an empty justification

You make it sound like suicide ganking rewards are somehow guaranteed; they aren't. You don't get their cargo and your insurance. You get your insurance and a RANDOM selection of their cargo/fitted modules, which every suicide ganker gets regularly screwed by. Insurance payouts are largely what make this a viable enterprise still by off-setting the "screwed by the loot drop once again" co-efficient. Without said screwed-ness mitigation the profitability and general viability is not just dramatically, but violently and lube-lessly reduced to a tiny, sobbing shadow of its former self.

Bye-bye freighter ganking.

High sec takes another step away from "safer NOT safe" towards Carealot.

You say this isn't going to end suicide ganking and you're right; it is however another nail in it's slowly closing coffin lid; I give it a couple more years at most.

Saw it coming for a long time and can to some extent see and agree with payouts being a bit silly.

You are however massively colossal gaylords for implementing this change. Pirate


Now.....where did I put all those PLEX's; sounds like it's about time to get an officer fitted bs and prance merrily around high sec running missions and writing petitions about how unfair life is. Lol


htfu or cry some moar
your choice


I'll go for option C; make another post quoting your post quoting my post.
Kheper Ra
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#455 - 2011-11-07 19:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kheper Ra
Tippia wrote:
Kheper Ra wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
See post 426 above.
Quote:
That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space.
No. The other security areas are there to provide a different kind of gameplay with different tools and different strategies. Highsec still needs to be a free-for-all (“free” as in speech, not beer) because of how it ties into the overall economy. It also needs to be made less safe so people learn to deal with the implications of this interconnectedness and shed the bad habits they've picked up from other games


The lower security areas of the game promote PvP. From the time a pilot joins EVE, they hear about the lack of safety in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. In fact when a pilot jumps from hi-sec to lo-sec or into w-space they are given a warning of how Concord can't protect them there. Hi-Sec is all about "relative safety" -- meaning that there are consequences for unsanctioned aggression. Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play.

Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all. ("free" as in speech, not beer). That is why we have the other "less secure" regions of space, and I use the term "less secure" very loosely. After all, it is a known fact that null-sec is relatively safe when everyone around you two and three regions over is blue. In fact it's quite a shame that null-sec is actually safer than lo-sec...but I digress.

As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers.

My favorite...

Quote:
Can I have your stuff?
Quote:
Don't be stupid. I need it, and I need your stuff as well. So hand it over.


I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys. Don't be that guy who picks on the 95 pound weakling. It's not good for your Battleclinic stats.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#456 - 2011-11-07 19:29:53 UTC
Kheper Ra wrote:
The lower security areas of the game promote PvP.
Nah. All of EVE is, largely because it's a PvP game. That's also why PvP is allowed everywhere.
Quote:
Hi-Sec is also about learning how to play the game. The reality is that EVE is very complicated, and only a fool jumps into this realm of Internet Spaceships thinking he/she going to be anything but ineffective for the first 6-12 months of play.
Not quite. The starting areas are about learning how to play the game — highsec is just an area where certainy types of gameplay are not available. Anyone who thinks he will be ineffective for the first 6-12 months is a fool and have failed to learn how the game works.
Quote:
Hi-Sec is not a free-for-all.
Of course it is. That's why you're free to attack anyone you like. In fact, it must be like this in order for the game to work. It is just an area where aggression costs, which makes people not be aggressive unless they can stomach paying for it. Hence why it's not free as in beer. The fact that you are entirely free to attack other players if you choose to is why it's free as in speech.
Quote:
As far as economy goes, well that's a very broad subject in the world of EVE. But, I'm sure botters, sanctum runners, ISK scammers, trading ISK for RL ISK, Plex farmers, etc...have more of an effect on the EVE economy than a few suicide gankers.
It's not about the impact — it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly.
Quote:
I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys.
So why did you try to make yourself out to be one?
Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#457 - 2011-11-07 19:46:14 UTC
As long as there are people stupid enough to move high value cargo in weak tanked ships there will be ganks. This just moves the stupid cutoff mark.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11441587
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#458 - 2011-11-07 19:56:41 UTC
Anna Hyperthron wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?



No, its not.

That's certainly a compelling and well-reasoned argument.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Lexmana
#459 - 2011-11-07 19:58:09 UTC
Anna Hyperthron wrote:
Lexmana wrote:


EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?



No, its not.


The fact that players are ganked even in high-sec proves me right.
Jita Alt666
#460 - 2011-11-07 19:58:49 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Kheper Ra wrote:

Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.


I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space.

Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.



Define safe and unsafe:
If 6 players die in a 0.8 system with 600 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 1% death rate
If 3 players die in a 0.0 system with 30 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 10% death rate
Which one is more dangerous?

Define "ships destroyed in the last hour":
How many died in missions? How many died to gankers? How many self destructed? How many died in consensual PVP?

Taking a map image as evidence of safety is not the most accurate way of gaining knowledge.