These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anslo
Scope Works
#3541 - 2014-09-02 20:17:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Wait what are you nerds even arguing about now? This doesn't look like the OP.
TL;DR Veers Belvar wants Concord to punish bumping because it's the "same" as activating a warp scram, and for people who've survived a gank to be immune from bumping for 60 seconds, because according to him there's absolutely no way to get into warp while being bumped.


If you're in a bigger ship, and don't have an insta, yeah it's pretty tough actually. Ganking (imo) in general is just done to be a douche and get tears so, meh. You know my opinion on it all though vOv

Edit: I sense a disturbance now in the nerds...as if a thousand text walls were all now being written at once.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3542 - 2014-09-02 20:25:12 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Wait what are you nerds even arguing about now? This doesn't look like the OP.
TL;DR Veers Belvar wants Concord to punish bumping because it's the "same" as activating a warp scram, and for people who've survived a gank to be immune from bumping for 60 seconds, because according to him there's absolutely no way to get into warp while being bumped.


If you're in a bigger ship, and don't have an insta, yeah it's pretty tough actually. Ganking (imo) in general is just done to be a douche and get tears so, meh. You know my opinion on it all though vOv

Edit: I sense a disturbance now in the nerds...as if a thousand text walls were all now being written at once.

hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3543 - 2014-09-02 20:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Anslo wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Wait what are you nerds even arguing about now? This doesn't look like the OP.
TL;DR Veers Belvar wants Concord to punish bumping because it's the "same" as activating a warp scram, and for people who've survived a gank to be immune from bumping for 60 seconds, because according to him there's absolutely no way to get into warp while being bumped.


If you're in a bigger ship, and don't have an insta, yeah it's pretty tough actually. Ganking (imo) in general is just done to be a douche and get tears so, meh. You know my opinion on it all though vOv
It's tough solo yeah but not impossible

I'm glad you brought up instas, it's a good counter, as is a friend with webs.

What are your thoughts, as a sworn enemy of James and his merry mauraders, on Concord treating bumping as the same as using an offensive module? We may not agree on a lot of things but you do make some insightful observations.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Anslo
Scope Works
#3544 - 2014-09-02 20:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Benny Ohu wrote:
hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah


Unless you have an insta which, let's be real, a lot of casual players don't know about. And even then, THAT's not a guarantee. Stop being an absolutist nerd.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
It's tough solo yeah, a friend with webs is a decent counter though.


We actually tested that once when I was beyond smashed and thought it was a good idea to warp my carrier to a belt to whore on a tackled AF. I got webbed to get into warp, but some nerd bumped me. All the webs in the world couldn't get me into warp. Carrier was safe, but I didn't get to whore. I was a sad Anslo.

Quote:
What are your thoughts, as a sworn enemy of James and his merry mauraders, on Concord treating bumping as the same as using an offensive module? We may not agree on a lot of things but you do make some insightful observations.

I mean what other path can people see with nothing being done to really give them a way to counter the bumps aside from hurrhurr change your play style? I despise that crap. If someone wants to mine, let em. Miners give me my ships and ammo, I love em. Why abuse em?

I said it a whiiiile ago, but if they could get a highslot module that works like a cyno to just keep them in place so they can't get bumped, I think it'd be a good balance. They can mine and go afk to tend to RL crap as it pops up, but concede to a wee bit of ore loss. But they sure as **** can know they won't be coming back bumped out of range.

Also, since going the pvp route and teaching bears and newbros a more positive spin on Eve, and learning from some of Eve's most 3LITE PEEVEEPEEURZ, I have this to say regarding bumpers:

lolscrubs

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#3545 - 2014-09-02 20:30:24 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Wait what are you nerds even arguing about now? This doesn't look like the OP.
TL;DR Veers Belvar wants Concord to punish bumping because it's the "same" as activating a warp scram, and for people who've survived a gank to be immune from bumping for 60 seconds, because according to him there's absolutely no way to get into warp while being bumped.


If you're in a bigger ship, and don't have an insta, yeah it's pretty tough actually. Ganking (imo) in general is just done to be a douche and get tears so, meh. You know my opinion on it all though vOv

Edit: I sense a disturbance now in the nerds...as if a thousand text walls were all now being written at once.

hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah


Unless you have an insta which, let's be real, a lot of casual players don't know about. And even then, THAT's not a guarantee. Stop being an absolutist nerd.


My scenario also involved 3 optimally fitted machariels using optimal bumping technique against a freighter.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3546 - 2014-09-02 20:30:59 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Anslo wrote:
If you're in a bigger ship, and don't have an insta, yeah it's pretty tough actually. Ganking (imo) in general is just done to be a douche and get tears so, meh. You know my opinion on it all though vOv

Edit: I sense a disturbance now in the nerds...as if a thousand text walls were all now being written at once.

hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah


Unless you have an insta which, let's be real, a lot of casual players don't know about. And even then, THAT's not a guarantee. Stop being an absolutist nerd.

one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment is a thing that's true and a fact, everyone knows that
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3547 - 2014-09-02 20:31:54 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
hmm 'pretty tough' sounds like a different thing than one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment doesn't it jonah


Benny I think it does. What you you think, other Benny?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Anslo
Scope Works
#3548 - 2014-09-02 20:33:37 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment is a thing that's true and a fact, everyone knows that


I edited that post btw,. Seriously, brah, Jonah is actually being a classy poster and you're kind of just shitting it up. Why so upset, friend?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3549 - 2014-09-02 20:37:22 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
one hundred percent inescapable false imprisonment is a thing that's true and a fact, everyone knows that


I edited that post btw,. Seriously, brah, Jonah is actually being a classy poster and you're kind of just shitting it up. Why so upset, friend?

i'm playing to my strengths

got to go where the wind takes me

treading the open road on a solo quest to be perhaps the most greatest forums poster who ever lived

it's a hard road but

i believe in myself

it's like a one hundred percent conversational quest of improvement
Anslo
Scope Works
#3550 - 2014-09-02 20:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
You're a bad and you should feel bad.

E: No sperg...no rage...no grr carebear lover gb2 WoW...I'm confused, scared, and slightly turned on.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3551 - 2014-09-02 20:45:55 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
My scenario also involved 3 optimally fitted machariels using optimal bumping technique against a freighter.


Why do you get to assume a 3(well, actually over a dozen)v1 fight should be easy to escape for the 1?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Anslo
Scope Works
#3552 - 2014-09-02 20:51:52 UTC
I mean, gankers don't really risk much. They risk a Catalyst. Oh God. The horror. What else is there? Sec status means jack **** to them. What are they risking that matches the reward of the gank, be it drop or km?

Real talk, legit question, cause I don't know the answer lel.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#3553 - 2014-09-02 20:54:52 UTC
Anslo wrote:
I mean, gankers don't really risk much. They risk a Catalyst. Oh God. The horror. What else is there? Sec status means jack **** to them. What are they risking that matches the reward of the gank, be it drop or km?

Real talk, legit question, cause I don't know the answer lel.


Since the reward is *entirely* player determined, who cares what they risk. (Also, a Catalyst today costs more to use in a gank than a Battleship cost to use in a gank before the insurance nerf)

Now let's flip your question. Without gankers, what do haulers risk?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Anslo
Scope Works
#3554 - 2014-09-02 20:57:54 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Since the reward is *entirely* player determined, who cares what they risk.


Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?' I know this is a side track, but I can't take this statement seriously due to what I just mentioned.


Quote:
(Also, a Catalyst today costs more to use in a gank than a Battleship cost to use in a gank before the insurance nerf)

...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking?
M8
Pls
Stahp

Quote:
Now let's flip your question. Without gankers, what do haulers risk?

Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what? Not once did I mention anything about getting rid of anyone. It's about balance.

Pls stahp.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3555 - 2014-09-02 21:04:50 UTC
Anslo wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Since the reward is *entirely* player determined, who cares what they risk.


Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?' I know this is a side track, but I can't take this statement seriously due to what I just mentioned.


Quote:
(Also, a Catalyst today costs more to use in a gank than a Battleship cost to use in a gank before the insurance nerf)

...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking?
M8
Pls
Stahp

Quote:
Now let's flip your question. Without gankers, what do haulers risk?

Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what? Not once did I mention anything about getting rid of anyone. It's about balance.

Pls stahp.


Anslo i know you played for a few years now.... you seriously dont remember back when people used battleships to gank freighters? Before the insurance nerf?

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3556 - 2014-09-02 21:05:21 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
What does need a tweak is the CODE abuse of various game mechanics (bumping, -10 sec status, etc...) to blow up empty ships, grief new players, and look for tears, not isk. CCP just needs to intelligently incentivize them to act more like rational suicide gankers who do it as a business.
Why does it need to be tweaked? There is no abuse going on and all the mechanics in question are working as intended. The incentive to treat ganking as a business is already there — after all, that's how it's done right now.

Quote:
Which is irrelevant if you are part of CODE and have -10 sec status.
No, it's not. There is nothing special or magical about those that suddenly makes game mechanics not apply to them. They're as relevant to them as to everyone else.

Quote:
I already made an argument for action. These guys obviously don't care about isk. They do care about time. Solution - make them grind more to be able to operate in highsec, which will make their ganks more selective.
Solution to what? You haven't defined the problem you're trying to solve yet. And why on earth should they have to suffer from more grinding for no good reason? They already care about ISK — this is obvious to anyone who has actually looked at how they operate, and it has already been explained to you why this is the case. Why is it that you are so steadfastly determined to never have any kind of attachment to reality in your arguments?

Quote:
My scenario also involved 3 optimally fitted machariels using optimal bumping technique against a freighter.
…and as proven beyond any doubt, that scenario does not live up to the description of “100% impossible to escape”. And you have yet to demonstrate that, even if it were true, that is actually presents any kind of problem that needs to be solved.
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3557 - 2014-09-02 21:07:42 UTC
Killing freighters can be done legally, just check out these guys

https://zkillboard.com/corporation/98107476/

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Anslo
Scope Works
#3558 - 2014-09-02 21:08:34 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
Anslo i know you played for a few years now.... you seriously dont remember back when people used battleships to gank freighters? Before the insurance nerf?

No I was too busy taking on a challenge.

Real talk though, I remember. Made isk off the insurance. They nerfed dat. I was happy. I still don't see it as even risk though. It may technically be more 'expensive,' but you're (not YOU but just in general) drawing a ******* parallel here saying that a few mil isk risk on a Cata is a fair match to a couple hundred mil dunked from a freighter.

It just doesn't match in my mind. I see it as low risk, low skill. Inb4 hurrhurr much planning such skill. Try taking 15 T3's and 4 guardians against 15 Archons and 20-30+ baltecs and WINNING before talking to me about a challenge requiring skill.

Nerds.

/me drops the mic.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3559 - 2014-09-02 21:10:05 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Devils Embrace wrote:
Anslo i know you played for a few years now.... you seriously dont remember back when people used battleships to gank freighters? Before the insurance nerf?

No I was too busy taking on a challenge.

Real talk though, I remember. Made isk off the insurance. They nerfed dat. I was happy. I still don't see it as even risk though. It may technically be more 'expensive,' but you're (not YOU but just in general) drawing a ******* parallel here saying that a few mil isk risk on a Cata is a fair match to a couple hundred mil dunked from a freighter.

It just doesn't match in my mind. I see it as low risk, low skill. Inb4 hurrhurr much planning such skill. Try taking 15 T3's and 4 guardians against 15 Archons and 20-30+ baltecs and WINNING before talking to me about a challenge requiring skill.

Nerds.

/me drops the mic.


I would love to see the battle report on that. Honestly

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#3560 - 2014-09-02 21:12:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anslo wrote:
Funny. I don't see gankers and grr carebear types using this argument when speaking against highsec. I see the opposite. So what is it? Rewards for bears and such should be nerfed? Or left alone cause it's 'player determined?'
Both. You see, some of their rewards are player-determined and can be left alone just fine. Many others are mechanically determined and could stand to be nerfed due to the minute risks involved in acquiring them.

And actually, if you look closely, you will see that argument very often when people try to use “but station trading!” as a sorry excuse for a counter-argument to having, say, the missions and incursions hoses dialled back some.

Quote:
...did you just compare a Cata to a BS for ganking?
Yes. It's an apt comparison since one was the cheap ganking tool of choice before the nerf, and the other was what replaced it in response to that nerf. How is this comparison odd to you?

Quote:
Nice try brah. Stop being absolutist. I never said get rid of gankers. Not once. I said what do they risk? Haulers risk their load and income. Gankers risk...what?
Time, ISK, income, future ability to operate. And even if those risks were low (they're not), so what? Put it in the balance against the utterly minuscule risk that the haulers face, and it becomes fairly obvious that the (supposedly) low risks the gankers face aren't low enough to let them project a reasonable amount of threat towards the haulers.

The haulers could do with a bit more risk, and a good way of making that happen is to take some of the pressure off of the gankers. If that means lowering low risks (which, again, it doesn't), then so be it.