These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#781 - 2011-11-09 08:29:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Ann133566 wrote:
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.

I never mentioned merit in any shape or form, I simply answered a question by describing how the killboards are managed. I don't manage those killboards.

I will elaborate for you, however.

The kills made from suicide-ganks are player-vs-player interactions, and as such have "merit" as pvp metrics. One player kills another, meaning that the former's pvp efficiency goes up, while the latter's goes down.

The losses taken from deaths to CONCORD aren't player-vs-player interactions, and as such have no "merit" as pvp metrics. CONCORD is simply a kill trigger, and can't be evaded. Losing a ship solely to CONCORD doesn't mean a player is somehow worse at pvp. However, this is no longer true if a random player manages to take a potshot at someone in the process of being killed by CONCORD. This is now a player-vs-player interaction, and as such has "merit" as a pvp metric.

To make it even simpler: suicide-ganking someone is a pvp activity, while losing your ship solely to an NPC entity isn't a pvp activity.

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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#782 - 2011-11-09 08:57:50 UTC
This thread is just getting daft now.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#783 - 2011-11-09 09:42:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was awayStraight

well. at least you was having fun trying to kill carrier..... but had bad luck.... dunno what happened but defence fleet was disbanded before organized because carrier got safe Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#784 - 2011-11-09 09:52:48 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Well this thread has gone from bad to horrible while I was awayStraight

well. at least you was having fun trying to kill carrier..... but had bad luck.... dunno what happened but defence fleet was disbanded before organized because carrier got safe Lol



I was on the BF3 CCP server when that happened Cool

I did get to mess around with 90 IRC last night in our 18 man gangTwisted
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#785 - 2011-11-09 10:11:30 UTC
even with no insurance pay out the suicide gank is till going to continue

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#786 - 2011-11-09 11:32:50 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


You certainly need to find better blues.


In my noob days I used to mission in lowsec and not get popped because there was little to get out of me .

But this is about high sec and insurance and nowhere does anybody want to see across-the-board consensual PVP in all regions. I don't want to see that.

In my statement of making high sec safer, I implied that it comes at a cost, being very high taxes. If highsec was safed up to eliminate non-consensual PVP without any other changes, it would be an ISK Pumping Bot haven. Think of a vending machine that you don't have to put money in.

You point out that there are cargo ships getting destroyed with considerable modules in them. I expect this happens near Jita? But again, if there was a tax on sales in high sec, there would not be a profit to selling it there. Imagine what would happen if, in order to get a good deal and not get raked with taxes, you had to take that to lowsec or 0.0?

It's mainly my idea though, and not likely to happen. At the least, with no reimbursement for hulls, there will be less ganking for lulz.


Was stating my failures over the years with multiple accounts to show that even noobs learn and that player retention isnt a matter of getting ganked in unfair or mean ways.

Yup your correct it would become a botters paradise and to some this game already is given some of the current mechanics available to bots and botters in both high sec and null space.

Yes most of it is within about a half dozen systems on the trade routes too and from jita. The rest will be in belts the Eve-verse wide. Only a small fraction will be anywhere near true noob gatherings. But if youd move trading and manufacturing to low sec youd get an even greater pirate presence on the funnel/ap gates into and from low sec like there already is and make these pirate gangs very happy campers or you get an increase of the same things happening on the 0.0 pipeline systems with bubble camps already. The fact that pirate organizations and 0.0 alliances would camp these routes 23.5/7 then would mean a total trade embargo and the stoppage and would completely collapse the economy in Eve quickly so itd be a bad idea entirely. Youd see T1 good prices going the way price wise of deadspace modules in a hurry.

Tbh therell still be ganking for lulz only the ships used will change to different ships or if a truly cheap thrill is needed without expense youll grab 2 or 3 buddies and do it with them. Other than this nothing will change lolz or for profit ganking will continue and probably be easier to do now in some ways as well.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Morar Santee
#787 - 2011-11-09 11:55:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
What defines a carebear Tippia?
Attitude and (commonly) a sense of entitlement. These two tend to restrict them to a select few activities, but it is not the activities that define the bear.


Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking? Trollololol

It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread. I'm just a tiny bit afraid they might eventually contribute more to the sea levels rising than global warming melting off the polar caps.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#788 - 2011-11-09 12:00:25 UTC
Veronica Kerrigan wrote:
As far as I know, from my largely speculative thinking, insurance is one of the largest ISK faucets in the game.
They're not. The largest one is bounties. The second largest is mission rewards. Insurance comes third, and fourth and last comes NPC buy orders.

If you need to “control the flood” then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go.
Morar Santee wrote:
Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking?
Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no.
Quote:
It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread.
Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.
Max Von Sydow
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#789 - 2011-11-09 12:01:00 UTC
Tippia 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.
They're not. The largest one is bounties. The second largest is mission rewards. Insurance comes third, and fourth and last comes NPC buy orders.

If you need to “control the flood” then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go.
Morar Santee wrote:
Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking?
Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no.
Quote:
It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread.
Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.


How so?
Morar Santee
#790 - 2011-11-09 12:08:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If you need to “control the flood” then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go.
Morar Santee wrote:
Like... being entitled to Insurance when suicide ganking?
Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no.
Quote:
It's awesome to see the tears are still flowing free in this thread.
Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.


Oh stfu. You've been playing the badly disguised victim for.. uh.. 40 odd pages by now? Bottom line is: There is no change for anyone involved in suicide ganking. Not for gankers, not for targets. Period. As there is no effective change in the ISK investment required to kill any given target, this is not indicative of any direction in game development, either. It is a required balance to introducing tier 3 BCs in their current form.
And yet I can open any page in this thread - any page at all - and find a post of you wailing how this change is so terrible because it is indicative of game development going down the wrong direction and BOOOHOHOOOOOOOOOOO.

But, of course, none of that is actually in any way related to insurance (which is why you're posting it on this thread) and you totally have a valid argument because... oh wait, no, you don't.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#791 - 2011-11-09 12:14:10 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:


PvP = Player vis Player

This includes by defenition, that BOTH partys interact with each other.

Ganging in EvE has just one acting side: the Ganger
The targets can do nothink (equal how many LIES you try to post here) to defend their goods ... (well, they can stay docked but WTF should they pay for this gamen then? -> NO OPTION!).

This leads to the result: Ganging is NO PvP !
It's less then PvE as even E(nviorment) can interact and shot back more often then not. Gang victims NEVER have either enough time (instand blob bullshit) or there aren't any tools (anti cargo-scanner?? posibilitys to counter with enough tank, ECM, rep (FAIL slot/cpu/grid layouts) CCP?? FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!).

So no, a total block with "you can't attack other players in highsec" will NOT effect PvP players! In no way!

PvP players will stay in low/toilet secure space or use the util of Wardecs for their Player vis Player sandbox.

And if some useless Ganger leave? WHO CARES!

This has to be a troll. If it's not it's literally the dumbest thing I've read on these forums.

it's OK. you are goon so don't need brain.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Mirime Nolwe
Mantra of Pain
#792 - 2011-11-09 12:16:56 UTC
Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP, lets repeat it, Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP.

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#793 - 2011-11-09 12:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Corina Jarr wrote:
Quote:


And which ACTIVE action can your target do?


There are plenty of action he can do, but it doesn't matter. As long as a player is the pilot (ie not a bot), it is PvP. Interaction between them both ways is not required. A player is combating a player.


For possible active things: if a shield booster is fit, it could make the difference between a live ship or a dead one.
If a hauler, fit an ECM or 2. Might help.

Though really, I have not once seen a hauler get ganked flying from a gate (not saying it wont happen, just I havent seen it), but plenty do on auto.


shield booster will help A LOT against alpha-strike, yea Roll
ECM too..... 2 ECMs is A LOT BETTER for sure..... but i advice using 4! Will jam whole system..... Problem is: CONCORD will blow you up if you try to do it EVEN FOR PREVENT obvious incoming attack....
Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#794 - 2011-11-09 12:24:20 UTC
Mirime Nolwe wrote:
Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP, lets repeat it, Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not PVP.


As long as two people are interacting in any way yes technically it is PvP. Maybe not how you like it but it still is.

Now its not much of a fight, but its a challenge in that you have to figure certain mechanics out and use them. But then you could argue that ganking isnt much of a challenge but then setting destination and hitting autopilot, or warping to a belt, locking a roid up and hitting a few keys isnt much of a challenge either. Do you do it for the challenge? or the isk?

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#795 - 2011-11-09 12:26:20 UTC
Morar Santee wrote:
Oh stfu.
No.
Quote:
You've been playing the badly disguised victim for.. uh.. 40 odd pages by now?
Eh… what? I've never been a victim of ganks, and I've never disguised myself as one — badly or otherwise. My perspective is rather the opposite of that of the victims. So I can't quite see where you got any of that form…
Quote:
Bottom line is: There is no change for anyone involved in suicide ganking. Not for gankers, not for targets. Period.
Good. Then there's no need to change it to begin with, since that disincentivises ship destruction and makes life harder for new players.
Quote:
And yet I can open any page in this thread - any page at all - and find a post of you
You haven't tried, have you. Lol
Quote:
But, of course, none of that is actually in any way related to insurance
Yes it is. If you don't think so, please elaborate on why.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#796 - 2011-11-09 12:26:29 UTC
Mirime Nolwe wrote:
Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not is PVP by very definition if there is a player at the other end.
Fixed.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#797 - 2011-11-09 12:27:40 UTC
You know if ganking a "helpless" pilot in high sec isnt PvP then why is it considered PvP if you jump into a gate camp and get wtfbbqpwnd by a gate camp in a second or two in low or null? I mean you have about as much chance of "winning" there as you do in high sec?

Just a question for the masses.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#798 - 2011-11-09 12:39:55 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
You know if ganking a "helpless" pilot in high sec isnt PvP then why is it considered PvP if you jump into a gate camp and get wtfbbqpwnd by a gate camp in a second or two in low or null? I mean you have about as much chance of "winning" there as you do in high sec?

Just a question for the masses.


The difference is the: a ganKers target never has a changs (if the ganKer is worth a cent) and the ganKers target NEVER wanted to PvP.

As soon as you enter low/toilet secure space, you KNOW about the risk and ACTIVE decide to take it! This is your acception, that you might run into a blob.

The ganKers victim never agreed to any PvP action but rather decided, to NOT be involved by staying in highsec.

You all talk all the time about sandbox and "my playstyle is part of this game". But all of you denail other players their playstyle and their sandbox when they say: " I do NOT want to fight against other players with my ship".

So either it is a sandbox, then you MUST except, that many players never ever want to fight in space. Or this is no sandbox game and then we all must PvP.

Now it's up to you, is it a sandbox?

If it is a sandbox, CCP MUST balance this game the way, so that player who don't want to PvP in ships and stay in highsec can play their sandbox!

And if you argument with "sandbox", you MUST excempt, that players in highsec can NOT be killed by other players without permission!

-> ganKing shouldn't work in highsec at all
-> wardecs can only happen, when BOTH partys agree

Anythink else is NO sandbox!

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#799 - 2011-11-09 12:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Corina Jarr wrote:
cpu939 wrote:

experiened ganked would look for another target or bump you

cloaky hualer finds the target he is not aligned gankers warp in - dead ship
cloaky hualer finds the target he is aligned hual gets in range and bumps ship - no agro you can't fire on him or your concord gankers lol (so do i) - gankers gank your ship

any ganker that wont bump an alinged ship is a noob


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. Unless they panic... (Note: exception being if the hauler managed to get in front of the miner...)

If not aligned: someone wins the lottery once in a while.

Oh and the rule tends to be if someone decloaks, warp. Depending on speed, the miner would have 1-2 seconds to click warp between the time the hauler decloaked and it actually bumping the miner.

how can 1-2 seconds help you when you are in mining barge? 1-2 seconds to warp from 0 is good for frigates

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#800 - 2011-11-09 12:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jojo Jackson
Tippia wrote:
Mirime Nolwe wrote:
Ganking Static and harmless Ships it's not is NOT PVP by very definition if there is a player at the other end.
Fixed.

Fixed as it doesn't matter, if their is an player in the target ship or not.
In both cases the attack shots a static object which has no option to react (defend) - and more often then not the hostil action is over, before the target even notice the hostility thanks to this STUPID pasive targeters (they must be removed from game @CCP).

By defenition PvP (player against player) requiers interaction between both partys -> which is NOT given!

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!