These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Richard Aiel
The Merchants of War
#461 - 2011-11-07 20:05:22 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.


you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/SOA-3-2.jpg
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#462 - 2011-11-07 20:21:19 UTC  |  Edited by: MeestaPenni
Jita Alt666 wrote:


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


Hey thanks for the tip....I'll make sure I don't do that in the future.

Offer whatever assessment you like.....just try it. At any given hour, where are the majority of ships destroyed? Forget your "stats" and "percentages"....where is the huge majority of ships being destroyed? Try and overlook the obfuscation of population, reason for destruction, etc.

Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?

I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you? Especially that there are people desiring to see more ships destroyed in hi sec?

I'm just throwing it out there.

Why are people hanging around hi sec when stuff's going kablooey all around 'em? Has it become so stagnant in low and null sec that the residents are bored?

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#463 - 2011-11-07 20:24:29 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?

I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you?

Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#464 - 2011-11-07 20:24:39 UTC
Richard Aiel wrote:
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.


you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?


I don't think so....otherwise many more systems would show results as a result of ratting.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#465 - 2011-11-07 20:26:04 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
MeestaPenni wrote:
[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?

I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you?

Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment.


Yeah it is.....One commonly held belief is "safety in numbers." Doesn't seem to hold true here.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Diosas
Doomheim
#466 - 2011-11-07 20:29:55 UTC
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.
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.


Why should the be forced to do what your suggesting? what if they like their bad habits? what if they like just carebearing? What gives you the right to force them to do anything?
Lexmana
#467 - 2011-11-07 20:30:31 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Richard Aiel wrote:
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.


you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning?


I don't think so....otherwise many more systems would show results as a result of ratting.


Try looking at "Escape pods destroyed" instead and you see a different pattern.

Also, to estimate risk you need to standardize your estimate by number of pilots e.g. by calculating a ratio of kills/no of pilots in space.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#468 - 2011-11-07 20:33:54 UTC
Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.

Where are the majority of ships destroyed?

I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.

The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#469 - 2011-11-07 20:36:02 UTC
Lexmana wrote:

Also, to estimate risk you need to standardize your estimate by number of pilots e.g. by calculating a ratio of kills/no of pilots in space.


I'm not trying to estimate risk. I'm woolgathering as to how a large chunk of the hi sec herd can be moved out of that space. Changing perceptions is a start.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#470 - 2011-11-07 20:36:04 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
MeestaPenni wrote:
[quote=Jita Alt666]Where are the huge majority of ships being destroyed?

I just looked at it again.....the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you?

Not at all considering highsec is where most of the players are at any given moment.


Yeah it is.....One commonly held belief is "safety in numbers." Doesn't seem to hold true here.


Get in a ship, any ship will do and go park yourself on the perimiter gate in jita. Make a note of how long it is before someone kills you. Now do the same in a 0.0 pipe.

Notice the difference.
Lexmana
#471 - 2011-11-07 20:37:04 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.

Where are the majority of ships destroyed?

I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.

The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.




Why not take a trip to null and see for yourself. You can survive in highsec right , so null should be like a walk in the park for you.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#472 - 2011-11-07 20:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MeestaPenni wrote:
Try and overlook the obfuscation of population, reason for destruction, etc.
They're not obfuscations — they're key factors in determining how secure something is.
Quote:
the "most secure" part of the EvE universe has the greatest rate of destroyed ships. Does that not seem paradoxical to you?
No.
Quote:
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed.
Why does it need to be changed? Low and null are much more dangerous areas.
Diosas wrote:
Why should the be forced to do what your suggesting? what if they like their bad habits? what if they like just carebearing? What gives you the right to force them to do anything?
Because the option is that they get destroyed. They don't have to learn how the game works, but then they forfeit any credibility and right to complain when things don't work the way they incorrectly assume that they work.

If they like their bad habits, they should understand that those bad habits will get them killed. If they can't accept that, then maybe they should find a game where those habits are not as bad.

Finally, just because they're carebearing doesn't mean they can't do it intelligently (although sometimes, one has to wonder… Ugh).
Kheper Ra
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#473 - 2011-11-07 21:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kheper Ra
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
I love Internet tough guys...especially Internet Spaceship tough guys.
So why did you try to make yourself out to be one?

I almost died laughing...

Really? You're promoting suicide ganking, being a bully, and all around EVE tough guy/girl all in the name of 'game mechanics', and this is how EVE is played, etc...yet as I counter your points (and other posters), somehow I'm making myself out to be the Internet Spaceship tough guy.

That sir/ma'am was an amazing leap of logic.

At least when Goon organized suicide ganks in hi-sec (ice miners) they had a specific reason...even if I don't agree with it, I can respect it.

Seriously, contrary to popular belief suicide ganking noobs and indy pilots does not make anyone a legitimate PvP'er. Technically, it may have been PvP combat at that moment, but it's like saying you were intimate with a member of the opposite sex...even though they did not consent...and then justifying the actions.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#474 - 2011-11-07 21:13:48 UTC
Anna Hyperthron wrote:
Lexmana wrote:
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?



No, its not.
Oh but it is, Eve was designed to be PvP centric.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#475 - 2011-11-07 21:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kheper Ra wrote:
yet as I counter your points (and other posters), somehow I'm making myself out to be the Internet Spaceship tough guy.
No. It was your “can I have your stuff” nonsense that made you that. Your attempt to at least find some proof of your statements is quite commendable, although the interpretation is a bit off at times.
Quote:
That sir/ma'am was an amazing leap of logic.
It was your logic, so that's your problem.
Jita Alt666
#476 - 2011-11-07 21:24:33 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.

Where are the majority of ships destroyed?

I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.

The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.



I understand what you are attempting to do - recolour discussion regarding safety in a manner so that high sec players see the risk vs reward opportunities in a different light. I think that intent it useful and productive. Breaking out from high sec is not actually that difficult (in eve terms) it requires investment in skills and taking the time to learn the fundementals.

Your argument however is akin to saying; "There are more deaths of people in fully enclosed motor vehicles (cars) each year than people on motorbikes, therefore it is safer to ride a motorbike than drive a car."

This I can not agree with.
Gealla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#477 - 2011-11-07 21:27:33 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, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP...hence the player controlled market, economy, industrialism, META game..... EVE is all of these things and to simply say "EVE IS PVP" show's a complete lack of understanding of how this game works.

I've had a toon for 4 years that hasn't left a station, he holds a corp for me....I also have toons that lost ships 3 days ago in lowsec and another that PVP'd last night in 0.0

Does this make me a PVP player or a Carebear? TBH I'm both and that's how I enjoy the game...not how you tell me too.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#478 - 2011-11-07 21:31:59 UTC
Gealla wrote:
No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP
No. EVE is an MMORPG where everything you do is in competition with other players — PvP.

There are exactly two thing in EVE that are not subject to PvP: accepting missions and handing missions in. Everything else is PvP in one form or another, and everything (including those two non-PvP actions) feeds the great war machine that keeps the market flowing… a market, by the way, that is all PvP the way that it is set up, even when you interact with NPCs.
Gealla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#479 - 2011-11-07 21:37:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Gealla wrote:
No, BF3 is a PVP game, CS is a PVP game, EVE is a MMORPG which entails a lot more than just PVP
No. EVE is an MMORPG where everything you do is in competition with other players — PvP.

There are exactly two thing in EVE that are not subject to PvP: accepting missions and handing missions in. Everything else is PvP in one form or another, and everything (including those two non-PvP actions) feeds the great war machine that keeps the market flowing… a market, by the way, that is all PvP the way that it is set up, even when you interact with NPCs.


Yes EVE is PVP centric, but it is not purely PVP, as you stated it has components that are not PVP.

There is no "correct" way to be involved in this game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#480 - 2011-11-07 21:43:44 UTC
Gealla wrote:
Yes EVE is PVP centric, but it is not purely PVP, as you stated it has components that are not PVP.
Two of them. Which are a part of one specific activity… the components are so few as to be completely ignorable.

By that token, BF3 and CS are not PvP games either since they also let you have fun with various parts of the environment and never kill a soul.