These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Has suicide ganking become a problem? Empty freighters being ganked.

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2461 - 2014-08-10 21:41:41 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.


It would be interesting if sec status changed based on the activity in that system. Jita would 0.5 in about a week.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2462 - 2014-08-10 21:57:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.


It would be interesting if sec status changed based on the activity in that system. Jita would 0.5 in about a week.



But conversely, lowsec and nullsec systems being ratted like there's no tomorrow should get a security boost upward. Imagine that.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2463 - 2014-08-10 22:05:39 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.


It would be interesting if sec status changed based on the activity in that system. Jita would 0.5 in about a week.



But conversely, lowsec and nullsec systems being ratted like there's no tomorrow should get a security boost upward. Imagine that.


No, I meant that as an empire space mechanic. Everything else has it's own schtick, this would be an interesting way to differentiate highsec and/or lowsec.

Unused systems would gradually float upwards to 1.0 as well.

Problematically, this would require a rework of sec status in terms of rewards, and would require a much more dynamic mission generation system. And then a shameless plug for my suggestion of a procedurally generated mission system.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2464 - 2014-08-10 22:14:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.


It would be interesting if sec status changed based on the activity in that system. Jita would 0.5 in about a week.



But conversely, lowsec and nullsec systems being ratted like there's no tomorrow should get a security boost upward. Imagine that.


No, I meant that as an empire space mechanic. Everything else has it's own schtick, this would be an interesting way to differentiate highsec and/or lowsec.

Unused systems would gradually float upwards to 1.0 as well.

Problematically, this would require a rework of sec status in terms of rewards, and would require a much more dynamic mission generation system. And then a shameless plug for my suggestion of a procedurally generated mission system.



I don't imagine such ideas to be easy. I do like the idea of more dynamic in system security status. You'd think in the "rise of the capsuleer decline of the state" theme of Rubicon something like that would start to happen, some systems "falling" to lawlessness, others gaining a boost. What would players with trillions of ISK in assets tied up around Jita and New Caldari do to prevent these systems from becoming lawless? What would other players do to bring low these systems?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2465 - 2014-08-10 22:21:06 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:

I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.


It would be interesting if sec status changed based on the activity in that system. Jita would 0.5 in about a week.



But conversely, lowsec and nullsec systems being ratted like there's no tomorrow should get a security boost upward. Imagine that.


No, I meant that as an empire space mechanic. Everything else has it's own schtick, this would be an interesting way to differentiate highsec and/or lowsec.

Unused systems would gradually float upwards to 1.0 as well.

Problematically, this would require a rework of sec status in terms of rewards, and would require a much more dynamic mission generation system. And then a shameless plug for my suggestion of a procedurally generated mission system.



I don't imagine such ideas to be easy. I do like the idea of more dynamic in system security status. You'd think in the "rise of the capsuleer decline of the state" theme of Rubicon something like that would start to happen, some systems "falling" to lawlessness, others gaining a boost. What would players with trillions of ISK in assets tied up around Jita and New Caldari do to prevent these systems from becoming lawless? What would other players do to bring low these systems?


You misunderstand, I think.

They'd only be able to move 0.5 up or down. Jita would still be highsec, just really low highsec.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#2466 - 2014-08-11 02:47:39 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:


I've been hauling on my alt for the two years I've had him and do you know how many times he's been ganked? I'll give you a hint, it's less than one.


So you're saying it's more than zero, right? In other words, it's fu***** useless.


Wait a second. Let me rethink that . . . .

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#2467 - 2014-08-11 18:00:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


You misunderstand, I think.

They'd only be able to move 0.5 up or down. Jita would still be highsec, just really low highsec.


This is what i meant with my original idea. Leave low/null alone, but let high sec vary based on player kills. I think of it this way: Concord gets so overrun with the thousands of people in Jita that it now takes them 19 seconds to respond (it is now 0.5), but an 0.5 system with no player deaths in a week is light enough that Concord can now respond within 6 seconds (it moves to 1.0)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2468 - 2014-08-11 23:46:31 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
One thing I think would be interesting is if security status of high sec systems changed based on the number of ganks. More suicide gankers means the system's status could change from 0.7 to 0.8. Less ganks means a system could change from 0.8 to 0.7 (and let's keep the same number of 0.7's, 0.8's, so if a 0.7 status moves up, another system's status has to decrease) Think of it as CONCORD moving resources to areas where they are more needed.

It could be very fun if Jita moves to 0.5 for a while Big smile

One must read and understand all of the context, lest he make himself look foolish.


I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.

it's not an uncommon idea. the problem is that the shortest routes, the ones with the gankers, would move up in sec and stay there. ganks'd move the sec up, the route'd remain the best route, people'll keep taking it, and the gankers couldn't move somewhere else because the targets are still taking the (now) shortest safest route. the gankers'd adapt and keep ganking, just with more numbers. therefore sec status'd stay 1.0 along the most travelled routes.

basically it's nothing but a nerf to ganking along the highways

now if there was a reason to not take the shortest, safest route, like a variable toll for freighters going through high sec status gates, that'd encourage freighters to take longer or less safe routes, the idea might make for more dynamic ganking
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#2469 - 2014-08-12 11:34:47 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
One thing I think would be interesting is if security status of high sec systems changed based on the number of ganks. More suicide gankers means the system's status could change from 0.7 to 0.8. Less ganks means a system could change from 0.8 to 0.7 (and let's keep the same number of 0.7's, 0.8's, so if a 0.7 status moves up, another system's status has to decrease) Think of it as CONCORD moving resources to areas where they are more needed.

It could be very fun if Jita moves to 0.5 for a while Big smile

One must read and understand all of the context, lest he make himself look foolish.


I used that as an excuse for a shameless plug of my variable high-sec security status idea. I know I was out of context.

I would love to wake up one day and find Jita is 0.5 and one of the bigger choke points went from 0.5 to 1, just to add some more excitement to high sec.

it's not an uncommon idea. the problem is that the shortest routes, the ones with the gankers, would move up in sec and stay there. ganks'd move the sec up, the route'd remain the best route, people'll keep taking it, and the gankers couldn't move somewhere else because the targets are still taking the (now) shortest safest route. the gankers'd adapt and keep ganking, just with more numbers. therefore sec status'd stay 1.0 along the most travelled routes.

basically it's nothing but a nerf to ganking along the highways

now if there was a reason to not take the shortest, safest route, like a variable toll for freighters going through high sec status gates, that'd encourage freighters to take longer or less safe routes, the idea might make for more dynamic ganking


You might be right. I honestly don't spend any time at all in high sec, so I don't know the maps well enough to know what the alternative trade routes would be.

Someone smarter than me needs to get the details worked out . What if it was based on the average number of players in that system over the last 12 hours, instead of based on number of kills? That way Jita stays at 0.5, but if gankers wanted to move the security status of a system, they could blitz it with a fleet and drop it's status quickly?

I wasn't trying to suggest nerfing gankers, I was just looking for some different gameplay in high sec.
ashley Eoner
#2470 - 2014-08-12 12:32:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Loyd is right, that fit is pretty hard to get a hold of.

And idk anybody who sebo gatecamps in highsec. Don't need to, there's always a bigger, slower fish.

If someone nails you down with the fit Remiel posted, it's more than likely because they were after you specifically, in which case you have more problems than just getting ganked.

All that sig bloom from the shield extenders helps the targeting matter quite a bit.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#2471 - 2014-08-12 14:39:49 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Loyd is right, that fit is pretty hard to get a hold of.

And idk anybody who sebo gatecamps in highsec. Don't need to, there's always a bigger, slower fish.

If someone nails you down with the fit Remiel posted, it's more than likely because they were after you specifically, in which case you have more problems than just getting ganked.

All that sig bloom from the shield extenders helps the targeting matter quite a bit.
A gank Catalyst with 2x sebos and scan res scripts is going to take about .8 seconds to lock it, you've then got about 3 and a bit seconds to get the scram on to prevent it from warping. It aligns faster than some frigates, it's going to be hard to catch if the pilot is on the ball.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Lily Marlene
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#2472 - 2014-08-12 15:32:07 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's space for us all in New Eden.



Oh come on Dev Falcon! Quit the lie; there really isn't "space for us all in New Eden." Let's be honest, CCP encourages griefers, gankers, spammers, and scammers, and it's quite upfront about that. Fair enough, and although I don't partake in spamming and griefing, it's actually fun to successfully pull off ganks and an occasional scam or two. But the Devs should be honest about it all and say EVE caters to the dark side of player ethos; the Game Designers are openly contemptuous of Carebears, and but for their $15/month, they rather the Carebears go play WoW. Again, I have no problems with sandbox environments, my main is in a ganking corp, I just want some truth in advertisement, especially from CCP officials.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2473 - 2014-08-12 15:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Lily Marlene wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's space for us all in New Eden.



Oh come on Dev Falcon! Quit the lie; there really isn't "space for us all in New Eden." Let's be honest, CCP encourages griefers, gankers, spammers, and scammers, and it's quite upfront about that. Fair enough, and although I don't partake in spamming and griefing, it's actually fun to successfully pull off ganks and an occasional scam or two. But the Devs should be honest about it all and say EVE caters to the dark side of player ethos; the Game Designers are openly contemptuous of Carebears, and but for their $15/month, they rather the Carebears go play WoW. Again, I have no problems with sandbox environments, my main is in a ganking corp, I just want some truth in advertisement, especially from CCP officials.


When a person says "there is room for everyone" they aren't saying "we will cater to you in any way you want".

There are plenty of non-ganker/scammer/darkside people in EVE. I'm one of them, In 7 years i've been in a total of 2 gank fleets that never got to gank anything and i only did that because my corp mates pestered me to try it. I've never scammed anyone, hell a dude in Jita gave me some isk on accident (his character was named jen something) and I gave it back. un-eve like I know, but I thought it the right thing to do.

My main thing in this game is keeping the world safe for space-democracy, one dead NPC at a time.

The reason I fit into this game when others don't is that even though I don't partake in certain types of gameplay, i don't condemn anyone for playing within the rules. I applaud them for it, it makes the game interesting and gives me something against which i can measure myself as I have become adept at AVOIDING people trying to do their 'gameplay' on me.

CCP is telling the truth when it advertises, they advertise FREEDOM, and the 'carebear' is just as free as anyone else in this game. What the average carebear can't stand is how everyone else is also free to do as they like in this game.....
Phoebe Buffet
Dirty Martini Clinical Operations
#2474 - 2014-08-12 18:45:42 UTC
The afk autopiloting issue is all on CCP as far as I’m concerned.
The mechanism is broken.
It’s a question of your precious gaming time and how you are willing to use it.
Lets say for whatever reason you have an unfitted battleship or an Orca in Molden Heath… something that aligns slowly.
You live in Arida because you changed corps or whatever and you have a lot of stuff to move.
So you fly your pod/shuttle to Molden Heath and then get in the ship to move it to Aridia.
So to move this ship non autopiloted from point A to B will take up to two hours maybe?
Two hours of gaming time wasted on a mundane task.
That makes no sense at all.
Instead, you could autopilot and go mow your lawn/clean out the garage/take a shower and go to the liquor store.
This isn’t just a carebear issue.
Everyone needs to move their stuff.
Yes, the galaxy is a huge place but gaming time is very precious and we have little choices on how to move things especially when you have to make multiple trips.
CCP needs to make long distance transportation more sensible.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2475 - 2014-08-12 18:47:07 UTC
Lily Marlene wrote:
Let's be honest, CCP encourages griefers, gankers, spammers, and scammers, and it's quite upfront about that.

ccp allows scammers and gankers. they've never tolerated griefers.

Lily Marlene wrote:
Game Designers are openly contemptuous of Carebears

no
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#2476 - 2014-08-12 19:04:54 UTC
Nothing but tears

The Tears Must Flow
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#2477 - 2014-08-12 19:16:47 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Lily Marlene wrote:
Let's be honest, CCP encourages griefers, gankers, spammers, and scammers, and it's quite upfront about that.

ccp allows scammers and gankers. they've never tolerated griefers.

Lily Marlene wrote:
Game Designers are openly contemptuous of Carebears

no



Griefers vary in definition, but if you use the definition "To do something that makes no sense in the game, except it causes the other player pain", then yes EVE is full of griefers.

An industrial player can understand and deal with cost benefit, and work around that, but it becomes hard to deal with the "watch the world burn people". This is why in most polite societies these people get a terrorist badge and up in jail forever. Not, just because they killed someone, they disrupted society (and business).

I do not own a freighter since I can withstand the loss of some idiot ganking it, "just because"., it would help run my little industry operation, but profits are just not high enough for loss of one freighter to kill profits for a few weeks.

Like the OP, I do not mind ganking, it is the perm -10.0 using holes in the system to continuously do it, that does not seem right (sort of like the yo yo Concord trick, where realism has to be ignored to keep completely valid tactic under most circumstances from being exploited.)

My suggestions, has always been if you reach -9 or lower NPC police will try and kill your pod and only low sec stations will accept your medical clones. Seems like a realistic disadvantage to being a known arsonist.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2478 - 2014-08-12 19:32:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Airto TLA wrote:


Griefers vary in definition, but if you use the definition "To do something that makes no sense in the game, except it causes the other player pain", then yes EVE is full of griefers.


The only definition of 'griefer' that holds any water in this game is the one contained in the EULA you clicked 'accept' on. By that definition, EVE is not 'full of griefers'.


Quote:

An industrial player can understand and deal with cost benefit, and work around that, but it becomes hard to deal with the "watch the world burn people". This is why in most polite societies these people get a terrorist badge and up in jail forever. Not, just because they killed someone, they disrupted society (and business).


This is a game. In the real world people like that get put away or killed. In a game they add flavor and excitement.

What flavor and excitement do you add to this game I wonder?

Quote:

I do not own a freighter since I can withstand the loss of some idiot ganking it, "just because"., it would help run my little industry operation, but profits are just not high enough for loss of one freighter to kill profits for a few weeks.

Like the OP, I do not mind ganking, it is the perm -10.0 using holes in the system to continuously do it, that does not seem right (sort of like the yo yo Concord trick, where realism has to be ignored to keep completely valid tactic under most circumstances from being exploited.)

My suggestions, has always been if you reach -9 or lower NPC police will try and kill your pod and only low sec stations will accept your medical clones. Seems like a realistic disadvantage to being a known arsonist.


We are playing a video game where one major technologically advanced race is basically using Gunpowder (auto cannons, Artillery), the space battleships fly like submarines in water and without a prop mod can go only slightly faster than a Cessna, and where mankind can travel light years in nanoseconds but hasn't invented cell phone technology of sufficient strength to talk to an NPC agent from outside a station.....

Tells us again your thoughts in Realism in New Eden.....
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#2479 - 2014-08-12 19:39:57 UTC
Samantha Floyd wrote:

To be fair a lot of anti-CODE players have no issues like this. There is an ever increasing following of people who enjoy the emergent gameplay but feel The New Order is ultimately just an excuse to produce tears from victims in order for James 315 to make fun of.

If that is a silly reason for an adult to hate another, then I don't know what to tell you. Seems valid enough to me.


Tears can be lulzy, but I rarely meet a New Order agent who majors in tear extraction. Pretty much everyone I know just loves exploding spaceships and creating content, it just so happens that high-sec is loaded with carebears who simply have never been introduced to emergent gameplay, thus the tears flow. I've exploded plenty of people who have been playing for *years* under the "highsec is supposed to be safe!" mindset and have never shot at/been shot at by another player. These people need our help.
Lady Areola Fappington
#2480 - 2014-08-12 19:40:38 UTC
Airto TLA wrote:

Griefers vary in definition, but if you use the definition "To do something that makes no sense in the game, except it causes the other player pain", then yes EVE is full of griefers.

An industrial player can understand and deal with cost benefit, and work around that, but it becomes hard to deal with the "watch the world burn people". This is why in most polite societies these people get a terrorist badge and up in jail forever. Not, just because they killed someone, they disrupted society (and business).

I do not own a freighter since I can withstand the loss of some idiot ganking it, "just because"., it would help run my little industry operation, but profits are just not high enough for loss of one freighter to kill profits for a few weeks.

Like the OP, I do not mind ganking, it is the perm -10.0 using holes in the system to continuously do it, that does not seem right (sort of like the yo yo Concord trick, where realism has to be ignored to keep completely valid tactic under most circumstances from being exploited.)

My suggestions, has always been if you reach -9 or lower NPC police will try and kill your pod and only low sec stations will accept your medical clones. Seems like a realistic disadvantage to being a known arsonist.



That's why we use CCP's definition of "greifer" on CCP's system. Makes life much easier that way, rather than having 100,000 different definitions, with resulting confusion.

There's no "holes" in a -10 flying around highsec. You're having a misconception moment. One of CCP's hard-set design features from the very beginning was/is "No player will be totally locked out of any section of space for any reason". CCP didn't like the idea of "You must be this tall/level/age/etc to ride" style divisioning of playerbase that other MMOGs do. There's no "Level 1-10, level 11-20, etc" zoning in EVE.

It may be difficult for a -10 to live in highsec, but it's not mechanically impossible.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide