These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Selinate
#121 - 2011-11-06 02:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Tippia wrote:

Selinate wrote:
Right, because it's unheard of for a BS fleet aligning on a gate while a small frig sits on a gate looking for big prey
…in which case it can be spotted.


Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan.

Tippia wrote:

Selinate wrote:
And you're any different how?
For one, I don't troll. People prefer to think so when I push them into a corner and they can't get out, but that doesn't actually make it a troll. I repeat questions when the respondent fails to answer them or tries to evade


This is laughable. You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers. You're like a small child who keeps asking the question "Why?" when an adult tells the child that the earth orbits the sun.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#122 - 2011-11-06 02:47:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Log-on trap is beaten by warping in spurts and changing direction in the middle of nowhere.


This is hilarious stuff.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#123 - 2011-11-06 02:57:19 UTC
Selinate wrote:
Yes, because a scout is going to blink at 50 people sitting in a high sec in BS's on D-scan.
If you've scouted the route, yes.
Quote:
You are a troll who trolls people that don't agree with you by bombarding them with questions that have obvious answers.
No, I am simply trying to get them to volunteer the underlying assumptions and intentions behind the claims they make, and offer some kind of reasoning behind their assertions and wishes. Yes, in some cases, they answers may seem obvious, but I still prefer that hey actually give those answers than to presume to know their reasoning, because I don't.

For some reason, a huge number of people seem to be highly offended by the mere thought of having to explain themselves and to argue for what they believe. This makes them want to label me as trolls, when in fact, it is an excellent opportunity to show why their perspective is preferable to others.

The reason I want that information is because it is usually far more fruitful to argue those underlying assumptions and normative statements than the road from those to some end result. If I were to presume why people don't want to go there, it is because they are aware that those statements are at odds with some fundamental design philosophy of the game.
MeestaPenni wrote:
This is hilarious stuff.
Yes. Laughingly easy.
Selinate wrote:
Trolling again.
How so?
Avon
#124 - 2011-11-06 02:58:42 UTC
The same insurance mechanic should apply no matter how a ship is lost.
That isn't a complaint; I for one look forward to the removal of insurance all together.
Hamster Too
Golden Fowl
#125 - 2011-11-06 03:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Hamster Too
Tippia wrote:
Hamster Too wrote:
There is absolutely nothing to stop you from killing anybody, anytime in high-sec.
…and yet, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen because highsec is defined by having costs tied to all kinds of aggression. The problem is that when these costs get too high, the aggression drastically decreases and thus makes highsec too safe.

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.

Everything has a cost. A low-sec pirate wants a kill? He has to spend ISK/time to hunt down someone. Null sec dwellers want sov in a system? Again, they have to spend time and ISK to obtain and defend it. Why should high-sec agression not have an associated cost? All these actions affect other players, why should high-sec agression be cheap?

If you care you can disrupt high-sec easily enough. Null-sec is supposed to be well organized. Descend on all of the carebears in high enough numbers and you'll make life very difficult here. Build one less supercap and spend the money instead to fund the anti high-sec campaign. Just look at Goons, it can be done.

But don't stop at that: while making life difficult in high-sec invite those same people to null. Spend time teaching and nurturing them and I am quite sure that quite a few will stick around.

As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time. P

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You don't like people feeling safe?
Only if it's a false safety. Otherwise, it starts to negatively affect the economy.
Quote:
Your unwillingness to pay the price in ISK or effort is not the reason to change the high-sec.
You do realise that this is an argument against the removal of insurance, don't you?

It is a false sense of security You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it? What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#126 - 2011-11-06 03:34:48 UTC
Hamster Too wrote:
Everything has a cost.
Fair enough. What I'm referring to is the one thing that defines highsec: that aggression costs. You can either pay it by losing your ship (suicide) or by handing over ISK to CONCORD (wardec). This is in addition to the various opportunity costs you mention. Thus, high-sec aggression does have an associated costs and it is… well, let's just call it “less cheap” than elsewhere.
Quote:
As to gank rarity: they are only rare when you are not affected by one. I know, I lost a few ships when I was younger. They did not seem particularly rare to me at that time. P
I have been targeted by ganks four times — two of those in my first year, one in my second, one in my third, and none since (ok, I landed in a disco trap recently, but it wasn't particularly aimed at me, and it was all suicide and no gank). I've also lived for quite a while in a very obvious ganking area and travelled constantly across an equally obvious ganking pipeline. The sum of those experiences is that ganks have become increasingly rare over the years.
Quote:
It is a false sense of security
Good. Well… no, it's bad, really. They shouldn't trick themselves that way. Preferably, they should be fully aware of the risks so they take the precautions needed to mitigate them and thus earn a sense of measured security — one that they have created for themselves.
Quote:
You don't like how other people play and you need the crutch to change it?
I don't need to change anything, but at the same time, I don't see the need for it to change either. I don't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to feel safe — I mean that the safety they feel should be of their own making, not one created by the game restricting gameplay in such a way that safety is the only feeling you can have.
Quote:
What's next? Demanding that everyone and his dog flies an officer fit pinata everyone they undock while in high-sec so you can actually make money on each gank?
Quite the opposite, actually. Remove that false sense of safety that lets them make such horrible mistakes and replace it with a sense of calculated and gauged safety that lets them judge what they can safely get away with without becoming that loot piñata.
Hamster Too
Golden Fowl
#127 - 2011-11-06 03:43:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aidan Brooder wrote:
They should fix corp wars then, as in: You can't just jump corp.
But suicide ganking en masse is lame. Anyone can do it with an alt.
That's the problem: they just did the opposite. The rendered corp wars completely obsolete since you don't even need to jump corp any more to get rid of them.

This leaves ganking as the only available means of attacking people, for whatever reason, and if this change is intentional, they're breaking the balance of that tactic as well. Ugh

Oh well… with a bit of luck, it's just a bug (and with a bit more luck, they'll reverse that policy change once it gets abused enough).


If the corp keeps shedding the wardecs send them a note that they will be suicide ganked until further notice. Open a petition with a copy of the note and ask for a definition of griefing so you don't cross the line. Lol

The way I see it the latest wardec changes are a good counterbalance to the plague of neutral reps, neutral boosters... neutral Orca pilots. Did I miss anything? Big smile
Covert Kitty
SRS Industries
#128 - 2011-11-06 03:47:00 UTC
bah insurance payouts for concorded ships was always, heck insurance payouts as a whole, are a silly feature anyway. It's probably an improvement overall.
Lairne Tekitsu
Candy Cabal
Surrounded by Wormholes
#129 - 2011-11-06 04:01:55 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:


I hope they go the whole way, and remove insurance completely.



+1



on a side note,: Tippia just got successfully trolled with one of the oldest troll attempts on the interwebs, which is repeatedly just posting 'troll'.


No, he's only been trolled if gets angry, which he hasn't.

There's a difference between trying to troll someone and succeeding.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2011-11-06 04:03:15 UTC
Lack of insurance payout wouldnt have saved this Orca.
Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2011-11-06 04:05:24 UTC
This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world.

Remove Concord, make kill rights transferable, change gateguns mechanics (introduce tracking)

MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#132 - 2011-11-06 04:13:48 UTC
I've seen very few people come right out and say "stop the ganking." A couple, not many. Point is....go ahead and keep the gank in the game. There is absolutely a valid place in the game for the practice. If I had the chance to gank a hauler with uber loots....pew pew pew.

There is no sane way to validate the practice of subsidizing that type of play though. And that is what insurance is....a subsidy to ease the loss of a ship. Missioners have no mechanism to subsidize the ammunition lost, or the drones damaged.....and the ganker considers the ship to be no more important than ammo. It is a piece of ammo.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.

Selinate
#133 - 2011-11-06 04:14:18 UTC
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:
This and Dec Shielding. EvE does not condone griefplay anymore... what's happening ? it's truly the end of the world.


How does eve not condone grief play any more? Go scam someone with the market mechanics. Or better yet, go flip some poor miner's can, let him shoot you, then warp in with a bigger ship.

Or even better yet, go suicide gank a hauler with 3 bil worth of faction stuff on his indy, since the profit will just be slightly smaller, but negligibly smaller.
Krios Ahzek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#134 - 2011-11-06 04:18:42 UTC
Now wait a second...

Does anyone really think that the big organized suicide ganking alliances care about a few million ISK work of Brutix? They're doing it for the tears and taking out 200m exumers. Taking away some pocket change reimbursal won't change anything.

 Though All Men Do Despise Us

Naari Talvanis
Doomheim
#135 - 2011-11-06 04:25:01 UTC
At last.. now let's all sit back and watch the griefer tears.. Big smile
Doubt we'll see many of the strategic or smart gankers crying in here though.. It's still possible to gank.. but it shouldn't be easy..

And for the people moaning that we're moving to pvp being consentual, move to low or 0.0, or moan for them to improve the wardec mechanic, which would actually be usefull.

Seeing people claim ganking has anything to do with pvp or smart fitting makes me enjoy the tears that will surely come even more.. Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#136 - 2011-11-06 05:26:07 UTC
Selinate wrote:
Still trolling.
How so?

MeestaPenni wrote:
If it's "utterly illogical".....how can it "have its place" and "serve a purpose?"
The same way I can be a Top Hat in monopoly — utterly illogical, but still with a purpose.

On the surface, it's because logic is not strictly required in order to have a purpose.
More fundamentally, though, it's because we are talking about two completely separate systems of logic.

Suicide-insurance is illogical — or, more accurately, unrealistic — because no real-world insurance company would pay out if the customer willingly and with intent put himself in a situation where he'd with utmost certainty be destroyed… even less so if the situation was one where he was committing a crime… and even less so if he kept doing it over and over again. It is illogical because the common logic of a business is that it is there to make money and to keep everyone from going to jail for aiding and abetting criminals (although some might argue this latter point…).

Suicide-insurance is logical because it is not a simulation of a real-world insurance company, but rather a game mechanic that is intended to incentivise the destruction of ships. This is a good thing because such destruction generates demand for goods and keeps the economy flowing. It is particularly logical if certain ships are particularly likely to be ganked and if, without these ganks, those ships would be in very low demand. The real-world-illogic is utterly irrelevant because the mechanic does not serve the same purpose as the real-world business. So being utterly illogical and still serving a purpose is not in any way contradictory.
Quote:
Please....explain why CONCORD is "utterly illogical."
It is utterly illogical in the same way as suicide-insurance is illogical — or, more accurately, unrealistic. No real-world police force teleports to the scene of the crime without being called; it does not instantly know who the culprits are, and it does not instantly kill (almost) everyone involved. In particular, no real-world police force has what can only be described as the hand of God backing them up, condemning anyone who somehow manages to avoid them to eternal damnation. It is illogical because the common logic of a police force is to apprehend and investigate suspected criminal acts so the suspects can be handed off to the criminal justice system.

CONCORD is logical because it is not a simulation of a real-world police force, but rather a game mechanic that is intended to define highsec: it is there to ensure that aggression in certain parts of space comes at a cost. This is a good thing because it creates an area where people can hedge their resources against the hope that the general miserliness of other players will keep them from attacking people all willy-nilly. It also ensures that certain acts of aggression are pretty much impossible due to hardware limitations, and thus opens up a market for the other way of paying that defining aggression cost. In order to maintain this defining characteristic, any tactic that circumvents it is considered an exploit and will be answered with actions taken against your account. The real-world-illogic is utterly irrelevant because the mechanic does not serve the same purpose as the real-world police force (in fact, a different mechanic is in place to simulate that part far more closely). Once again, being completely illogical and at the same time serving a purpose is not in any way contradictory.
Naari Talvanis wrote:
At last.. now let's all sit back and watch the griefer tears.. Big smile
They have to find this thread first, which would explain the lack of tears so far…
Krios Ahzek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2011-11-06 05:30:01 UTC
The real tears will be from the miners when they find out that gankers actually do not give a crap about insurance.

 Though All Men Do Despise Us

SilentSkills
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2011-11-06 05:31:22 UTC
Crap. my bucket is full..

/gets new tear bucket

Can't have enough ganker tears!
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#139 - 2011-11-06 06:14:29 UTC
I am tired of posting on the topic so I'll just say this.

Inb4 victims cry because gankers are exploiting every loophole in the book and still getting insurance.

Inb4 Victims cry because ganking escalates cause you ****** with the wrong crowd.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#140 - 2011-11-06 06:15:05 UTC
SilentSkills wrote:
Crap. my bucket is full..

/gets new tear bucket

Can't have enough ganker tears!


Gankers, unlike most of their victims, are able to adjust their tactics when game mechanics are changed against their favor.

I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar