These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#761 - 2011-11-09 06:04:47 UTC
Salah Loveless wrote:
Besides what police/government is going to let what amounts to gang warfare happen right in their own back yard?


I'm going to go on a limb here and say:

If real life is to be believed, every single one of them?

 Though All Men Do Despise Us
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#762 - 2011-11-09 06:12:43 UTC
Salah Loveless wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
But of course you do.


I do

But if I did not I am not the one on the forums crying about lack of "PvP opertunities" or that EvE is changing and we can no longer PvP since it will be more costly to force it in Highsec., when the game designed PvP low and null sec is but a few jumps away. You guys are like idiots at a socer game wanting to bounce the ball with your hands and throw it up into a net rather than kick it into a goal and expect everyone to follow suite rather than just going to the basketball game across the park, but of course there the players know how to play basketball and you might have a challange.

I know you do. That is why I agreed with you. You go to low-sec to pvp, and you pvp in low-sec a lot, and you are very knowledgeable about low-sec pvp and therefore qualified to discuss it.

Also, it is a matter of public record that CCP designed EVE Online in such a manner that low-sec and null-sec were created for the sole purpose of existing as pvp conduits, while high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.

It is also a commonly-known fact that pvpers only fight when they are absolutely sure they can win. This is why the only form of pvp combat in EVE is suicide-ganking, unfortunately.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#763 - 2011-11-09 06:15:09 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.

This is absolutely not true.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Salah Loveless
Deep Space Exploration and Settlement INC
#764 - 2011-11-09 06:25:38 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

high-sec was created with the sole intent of being a safe haven for people to engage in industrial pursuits and be entirely free from non-consensual player interaction.

This is absolutely not true.


That was her/his attempt at sarcasm.
I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of “risk free” isk as a reason they should have “risk free” PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you can’t add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk????
Veronica Kerrigan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#765 - 2011-11-09 06:38:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Stealing Honest wrote:
This is a nice move. Not because it will reduce ganks, but because it wont effect them at all, and it does reduce an isk faucet.
If they want to reduce the ISK faucets, it would be far better to adjust one of the bigger ones and do a very minute adjustment to it instead — same total effect, but far less impact on those affected.


As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#766 - 2011-11-09 06:38:54 UTC
Salah Loveless wrote:
I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of “risk free” isk as a reason they should have “risk free” PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you can’t add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk????

I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.

If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.

But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Dbars Grinding
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#767 - 2011-11-09 06:40:05 UTC
CCP needs to help the highsec people and give them more things to do. Make EVE more casual and ccp will get more subs. Actually everyone should move to highsec and run missions together. I would also like mining to be easier.

I have more space likes than you. 
Salah Loveless
Deep Space Exploration and Settlement INC
#768 - 2011-11-09 06:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Salah Loveless
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Salah Loveless wrote:
I just find in ironic that grievers use the guise of “risk free” isk as a reason they should have “risk free” PvP. Hence this thread. CCP made a risk to carebear PvP tactics and its cry cry cry we can no longer risk free PvP you might have to risk a lose so it is unfair. Which is wrong because EvE should have risk so you can’t add risk to them cause adding risk is wrong as it takes away risk????

I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.

If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.

But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.


Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing.

Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#769 - 2011-11-09 06:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.

Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets?

Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium?

I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled?

And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties.

Salah Loveless wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.

If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.

But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.


Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing.

Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there.

Regardless of what you think I want, do you or do not find what I said to constitute a fair system?

Feel free to quote me, but please quote the whole thing, instead of selectively snipping the bits that you can twist to better serve your own context.

I pvp because I like pvp, not because I like risk. That is not to say I dislike risk; I will not confirm whether I do or don't because my feelings toward risk do not have a bearing on my feelings toward pvp. I accept risk when the benefits in doing so (chance of gaining cash or possibility of having fun) exceed its costs. I'm not going to fight every battle simply because I feel that it is my obligation as a pvper to do so. If we want to use your sports analogy, we can say that a basketball player likes basketball because of his interest in the game and his drive to win at it, and not because he is looking to increase his chances of failure as much as possible.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#770 - 2011-11-09 07:01:06 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
If a cloaky hauler bumps an aligned miner... the miner could easily regain speed and warp (which he should do immidietly) in less than 3 seconds.


Bump a hulk and it takes around 8 seconds to align and warp. Keep bumping the hulk and it will never align and warp out. The time it takes to re-align is more than enough to back off, engage the MWD, and bump the hulk again. Using D-scan at this point is useless, since you're not going to escape even if the attackers are two systems away.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Veronica Kerrigan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#771 - 2011-11-09 07:04:31 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.

Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets?

Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium?

I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled?

And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties.


To be perfectly honest, I did not think this in depth. I was saying a potential problem that came to mind, because then, if it's wrong, the next time the situation comes up, my first though will be correct. I was simply stating that currently, there is a stigma that by mining minerals you can only trade wealth, by creating a product and then selling it for ISK made from missions, ratting, incursions, so on. However by my logic, I now see that by turning minerals into ISK, you create a larger problem of inflation. Guess that's what happens when you post after playing in a soccer game, and waiting to check to forums until midnight.
Ann133566
Doomheim
#772 - 2011-11-09 07:17:25 UTC
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?
cpu939
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#773 - 2011-11-09 07:21:52 UTC
Ann133566 wrote:
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?


how ever you die you get a killmail, killoards are set to not show them
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#774 - 2011-11-09 07:27:01 UTC
Ann133566 wrote:
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?

First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Ann133566
Doomheim
#775 - 2011-11-09 07:29:15 UTC
cpu939 wrote:
Ann133566 wrote:
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?


how ever you die you get a killmail, killoards are set to not show them


I haven't died on PVE for a long long time, but I didn't recieve a killmail for it. Well nevermind.
Salah Loveless
Deep Space Exploration and Settlement INC
#776 - 2011-11-09 07:34:35 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.

Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets?

Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium?

I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled?

And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties.

Salah Loveless wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.

If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.

But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.


Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing.

Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there.

Regardless of what you think I want, do you or do not find what I said to constitute a fair system?

Feel free to quote me, but please quote the whole thing, instead of selectively snipping the bits that you can twist to better serve your own context.

I pvp because I like pvp, not because I like risk. That is not to say I dislike risk; I will not confirm whether I do or don't because my feelings toward risk do not have a bearing on my feelings toward pvp. I accept risk when the benefits in doing so (chance of gaining cash or possibility of having fun) exceed its costs. I'm not going to fight every battle simply because I feel that it is my obligation as a pvper to do so. If we want to use your sports analogy, we can say that a basketball player likes basketball because of his interest in the game and his drive to win at it, and not because he is looking to increase his chances of failure as much as possible.


Yes but he does not go to a soccor field and demand that everyone play basketball. Also while their could be reward for PvP, if that is what you are driving at, changing Highsec to better suit grievers helps this how?

The games income is based on rewards for missions bounties and by trade and manufaturing. The risk to income is loss of ships. Since PvP will almost always be harder than PvE as a real player with same stats ( or potential for same states) will always pose a bigger threat. Making grieving more available is not going to change this fact.

If PvP is to ever been on par with PvE isk wise minigation of lose and incress of reward would have to be implimented. Of course if you remove the risk in PvP than you change the game as a whole making EvE similar to other MMORPG's such as WoW where you can PvP without lose and gain special rewards for doing so.

The big difference from ganking and PvP in lowsec is that PvP, in most cases, are fit to outlast and win and thus even with insurance isk is lost. Ganking ships are fit knowing they will go pop and insurance normally makes this a 0 or close to 0 lose.
While PvP is part of the game as a whole it is supposed to be very Risky to do in Highsec. CCP seems to be fixing this so it is still risky.

I have not been ganked in highsec and think it is on the level it probaly needs to be at. What I think is the mindset behind this proposed change is as been notted the new BC might tip the scales of this ballance and that would not be good for EvE as a whole.
Salah Loveless
Deep Space Exploration and Settlement INC
#777 - 2011-11-09 07:35:10 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game. It is technically a means of turning near limitless resources (minerals) into ISK directly. Now, how much suicide ganks truly contribute is probably much more negligible, but the fact remains that it means less ISK is being injected. It might not be a whole hell of a lot, but every little bit helps to control the flood.

Have you ever considered that because we don't buy our gear from NPC shops, but create it with harvested materials, that there might also be material faucets?

Have you ever considered that ISK and materials form a standard supply/demand curve, and exist at a shifting equilibrium?

I honestly can't wrap my mind around the thought process of people who so adamantly push forth the claim that ISK faucets are inherently bad, and should be mitigated as much as possible. Why should CCP do this? What floods, exactly, need to be controlled?

And by the way, insurance payouts make up a small fraction of total ISK generated, compared to mission/rat bounties.

Salah Loveless wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money.

If the game is changed so that high-sec becomes much safer, I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly inversely proportional to the amount of rewards you get for operating in a risk-free environment.

But I'm not holding out hope that you bears will agree to a system this fair. After all, you need us to both grind money/sell PLEXes to buy your ships, and then get those ships blown up so you have someone to sell more of them.


Yes that is what I said. You want your Carebear PvPing to have as little risk just running missions. Why I call it CareBear PvPing.

Can I quote you in my signature? I think the risk I should be exposed to in pvp should be roughly equivalent to the risk carebears get exposed to when they make money. That pretty much sums up all the Highsec PvP CareBears right there.

Regardless of what you think I want, do you or do not find what I said to constitute a fair system?

Feel free to quote me, but please quote the whole thing, instead of selectively snipping the bits that you can twist to better serve your own context.

I pvp because I like pvp, not because I like risk. That is not to say I dislike risk; I will not confirm whether I do or don't because my feelings toward risk do not have a bearing on my feelings toward pvp. I accept risk when the benefits in doing so (chance of gaining cash or possibility of having fun) exceed its costs. I'm not going to fight every battle simply because I feel that it is my obligation as a pvper to do so. If we want to use your sports analogy, we can say that a basketball player likes basketball because of his interest in the game and his drive to win at it, and not because he is looking to increase his chances of failure as much as possible.


Yes but he does not go to a soccor field and demand that everyone play basketball. Also while their could be reward for PvP, if that is what you are driving at, changing Highsec to better suit grievers helps this how?

The games income is based on rewards for missions bounties and by trade and manufaturing. The risk to income is loss of ships. Since PvP will almost always be harder than PvE as a real player with same stats ( or potential for same states) will always pose a bigger threat. Making grieving more available is not going to change this fact.

If PvP is to ever been on par with PvE isk wise minigation of lose and incress of reward would have to be implimented. Of course if you remove the risk in PvP than you change the game as a whole making EvE similar to other MMORPG's such as WoW where you can PvP without lose and gain special rewards for doing so.

The big difference from ganking and PvP in lowsec is that PvP, in most cases, are fit to outlast and win and thus even with insurance isk is lost. Ganking ships are fit knowing they will go pop and insurance normally makes this a 0 or close to 0 lose.
While PvP is part of the game as a whole it is supposed to be very Risky to do in Highsec. CCP seems to be fixing this so it is still risky.

I have not been ganked in highsec and think it is on the level it probaly needs to be at. What I think is the mindset behind this proposed change is as been notted the new BC might tip the scales of this ballance and that would not be good for EvE as a whole.
Ann133566
Doomheim
#778 - 2011-11-09 07:55:47 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ann133566 wrote:
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?

First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter.


So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#779 - 2011-11-09 08:06:13 UTC
Ann133566 wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ann133566 wrote:
A question. How would you all feel if concord kills were added to killmails?

First of all, when you lose a ship to CONCORD, you already get a lossmail. If there's at least one player involved in the kill, then a killmail is also generated. However, most killboards already assign such kills extremely low point values (0.1 points on BC, even if a guy in a T1 frigate gets off a shot on a battleship being popped by CONCORD). Killboard owners disregard pure CONCORD losses because they aren't a pvp efficiency metric. Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter.


So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking?

Wait, when did I ever say that?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Ann133566
Doomheim
#780 - 2011-11-09 08:15:59 UTC
So in your opinion there is no merit in suicide ganking?[/quote]
Wait, when did I ever say that?[/quote]

When you said:

"Just think about it: if players A and B both have 200 kills and 100 losses each, but player B also has an extra 100 suicide kills and an extra 100 corresponding losses to CONCORD, is player B a worse pvper than player A? Player A's efficnency is 2:1, and player B's is 3:2, but you can hardly say that the former is a better pvper than the latter"

In other words player either player B's suicide ganks are without any merit, or you believe that suicide ganking isn't really PvP as in it belongs to category altogether.