These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Noragli
Doomheim
#561 - 2014-06-19 18:55:37 UTC
Xinivrae wrote:
Noragli wrote:
the playerbase has shrunk

*citation needed


Citation is CCP having stopped releasing sub numbers. And you only need to look at online players at the login screen to see there's a lot less people than there used to be.
Soylent Jade
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#562 - 2014-06-19 18:56:57 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

tell you what, i'll make a petition.

e: This was the question I asked

"Are players allowed to use disposable ships to spawn CONCORD close to where they are, with the intention of having CONCORD immediately attack any aggressors and therefore defend their ship for them?"


You're not allowed to share content of GM correspondence, are you? Hopefully, they will answer it here on the forums like they did with bumping.

Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time

minerbumping.com

Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#563 - 2014-06-19 18:58:14 UTC
I love peoples convoluted concepts of risk, reward, and punishment here.

The two of the most risk averse groups in the game, Carebears and Gankers have through years of suggestions to CCP put together this terrible system that only rewards their play style and completely ruins if for people that actually want to fight it out.

You have two real options with this sytem, tank up like crazy and scout, so you can continue to carebear it out and avoid any player vs player shooting, or you can gank the gankers non-criminal scouts, and/or exploit CONCORD mechanics, becoming a ganker yourself.

Highsec has no place for a player police, defending your industry fleet, or escelating fights simply because game mechanics won't allow it. It's all about avoidance or shooting fish in a barrel.

Add on top of that "GM discresion" for player bans, with players constantly crying to GM's, and it's no wonder the main goal here is to greif and get players banned instead of interesting and meaningful PvP.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#564 - 2014-06-19 19:02:09 UTC
Soylent Jade wrote:
You're not allowed to share content of GM correspondence, are you? Hopefully, they will answer it here on the forums like they did with bumping.

No. I already asked if I can share the answer. If I remember, though, you're allowed to paraphrase (i'd share a 'yes' or 'no') as long as you're not misrepresenting what they say.

Tricia Killnu wrote:
Last I herd (And I could be wrong as this forums isnt always correct) Disposable alts for this function is a no no. However spawning concord in itself is not wrong.

Disposable alts are an exploit. I was talking about disposable ships, though. Using a newbie frigate to warp CONCORD away from the site where you intend to make a gank is commonly accepted as legitimate gameplay.

Noragli wrote:
Xinivrae wrote:
Noragli wrote:
the playerbase has shrunk

*citation needed


Citation is CCP having stopped releasing sub numbers. And you only need to look at online players at the login screen to see there's a lot less people than there used to be.

That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.
Spectral Tiger
#565 - 2014-06-19 19:08:21 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.




Yeah, but they would only do that if they were not as good as they have been.



I still remember when they kept trying to get people to log on to set a new players online record. But don't hear anything like that these days.
Tricia Killnu
The Horn
#566 - 2014-06-19 19:09:03 UTC
Tricia Killnu wrote:
Last I herd (And I could be wrong as this forums isnt always correct) Disposable alts for this function is a no no. However spawning concord in itself is not wrong.

Disposable alts are an exploit. I was talking about disposable ships, though. Using a newbie frigate to warp CONCORD away from the site where you intend to make a gank is commonly accepted as legitimate gameplay.[/quote]

Citation is CCP having stopped releasing sub numbers. And you only need to look at online players at the login screen to see there's a lot less people than there used to be.[/quote]
That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.[/quote]

yes you are correct, I misinterpreted what was said

But its a legitimate gameplay mechanic unless CCP says otherwise

Since they haven't means its OK to do cause if it wasn't there would be a sticky at the top of this forum stating why.

So lets all keep not getting along undock in all our ships and blow each other away.

Sounds good to me

Sometimes you just have to realized you undocked and you suck. . .

Solecist Project
#567 - 2014-06-19 19:11:23 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
I love peoples convoluted concepts of risk, reward, and punishment here.

The two of the most risk averse groups in the game, Carebears and Gankers have through years of suggestions to CCP put together this terrible system that only rewards their play style and completely ruins if for people that actually want to fight it out.

You have two real options with this sytem, tank up like crazy and scout, so you can continue to carebear it out and avoid any player vs player shooting, or you can gank the gankers non-criminal scouts, and/or exploit CONCORD mechanics, becoming a ganker yourself.

Highsec has no place for a player police, defending your industry fleet, or escelating fights simply because game mechanics won't allow it. It's all about avoidance or shooting fish in a barrel.

Add on top of that "GM discresion" for player bans, with players constantly crying to GM's, and it's no wonder the main goal here is to greif and get players banned instead of interesting and meaningful PvP.

I oppose this statement as I am in no way or form a risk averse player.

Like ... at all.

I embrace it. I seek it. I hunt it.

I have boobs!

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Xinivrae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#568 - 2014-06-19 19:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Xinivrae
Noragli wrote:
Xinivrae wrote:
Noragli wrote:
the playerbase has shrunk

*citation needed


Citation is CCP having stopped releasing sub numbers. And you only need to look at online players at the login screen to see there's a lot less people than there used to be.

You're adorable. Try and follow me on this one, ok? Suicide ganking has been pretty prevalent throughout the course of eve's life (and it was way easier back in the day than it is now). Sure, more during some times than others (m0o, hulkageddon, burn jita, etc...) but I have absolutely no reason to believe it's significantly worse now than the last time someone made a thread about the exact same thing last month/year/the year before that, so on and so forth.

So, with the knowledge that suicide ganking has always been a part of the game, let's take a rough look at the subscription numbers that we do have access to. I'll even provide you with a chart courtesy of mmodata.

Interesting to see isn't it? I mean if suicide ganking was the problem you claim, surely it would have made an impact on subs a loooong time ago? But it appears that isn't the case, what could that possibly mean I wonder...
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#569 - 2014-06-19 19:46:08 UTC
Ganking empty freighters = working as intended.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#570 - 2014-06-19 20:12:05 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Ganking empty freighters = working as intended.
Is there really any actual intent there? Seems more like giving the freedom to act and letting whatever happens happen.
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#571 - 2014-06-19 20:17:47 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sarah Flynt wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
So... its a legitimate tactic to bring a NPC corp alt in an ibis along with your freighter and a guy in a frigate in your corp, and every jump, kill the alt, summon concord and then jump, reship and repeat at each jump?

That just doesnt sound right to me

It is a legitimate tactic if you don't biomass that alt without getting his sec status up again. But it won't help you much as the one CONCORD spawn will only deal with one of the many gank ships. You'd have to bring more at once, depending on the size of the gank fleet.


It's actually not a legitimate tactic. Pre-spawning CONCORD for your own defense is an actionable offense.


I've quoted several CCP Dev/GM statements in earlier posts in this thread which illustrate under which circumstances it is a valid tactic. If you can show me a single official and more recent statement that overrules them, I'm all ears.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !

Heinrich Erquilenne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2014-06-19 20:25:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinrich Erquilenne
Benny Ohu wrote:
That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.


Here it is:
http://nosygamer.blogspot.hu/2014/06/explaining-chribbas-famous-graph.html

I don't have a direct access to the data but people used to maths stuff will see the R² gives a slightly negative trend...

So yes eve online is definitely losing accounts, and players, probably at a faster rate. And it's been the case for years. But i don't see how this is relevant to the topic. I'm just posting it to end this pointless digression.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#573 - 2014-06-19 20:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Sarah Flynt wrote:
I've quoted several CCP Dev/GM statements in earlier posts in this thread which illustrate under which circumstances it is a valid tactic. If you can show me a single official and more recent statement that overrules them, I'm all ears.



Nice try, but I caught you out. You damn sure did not post GM communication. Nevermind that it's against the rules to do so, probably against the rules to claim you did so too.

Got anything better, or are you just going to make spurious claims based on a poor interpretation of a dev post? Because we already have a guy on the forum who does that, and Dinsdale guards his title fiercely.

"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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#574 - 2014-06-19 20:30:07 UTC
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.


Here it is:
http://nosygamer.blogspot.hu/2014/06/explaining-chribbas-famous-graph.html

I don't have a direct access to the data but people used to maths stuff will see the R² gives a slightly negative trend...

So yes eve online is definitely losing accounts, and players, probably at a faster rate. And it's been the case for years. But i don't see how this is relevant to the topic. I'm just posting it to end this pointless digression.


Concurrency numbers and sub numbers are NOT the same thing, you mental deficient.

Nevermind that, if you actually bother to read that graph, concurrency drops e.v.e.r.y s.u.m.m.e.r.

"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.

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#575 - 2014-06-19 20:36:27 UTC
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
That indicates that CCP doesn't want to share sub numbers. Nothing more.


Here it is:
http://nosygamer.blogspot.hu/2014/06/explaining-chribbas-famous-graph.html

I don't have a direct access to the data but people used to maths stuff will see the R² gives a slightly negative trend...

So yes eve online is definitely losing accounts, and players, probably at a faster rate. And it's been the case for years. But i don't see how this is relevant to the topic. I'm just posting it to end this pointless digression.

that's not sub numbers, it's logged in users. and i don't see it going down. even then, i don't see how a slight loss is relevant. it doesn't indicate sub numbers. it doesn't mean eve is losing accounts. it doesn't indicate eve is losing players at a faster rate. it doesn't indicate that ganking is the cause.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#576 - 2014-06-19 20:43:02 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sarah Flynt wrote:
I've quoted several CCP Dev/GM statements in earlier posts in this thread which illustrate under which circumstances it is a valid tactic. If you can show me a single official and more recent statement that overrules them, I'm all ears.



Nice try, but I caught you out. You damn sure did not post GM communication. Nevermind that it's against the rules to do so, probably against the rules to claim you did so too.

She did. Here. GM Grimmi, posting on 2008.07.10 at 17:18:00.

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#577 - 2014-06-19 20:44:48 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sarah Flynt wrote:
I've quoted several CCP Dev/GM statements in earlier posts in this thread which illustrate under which circumstances it is a valid tactic. If you can show me a single official and more recent statement that overrules them, I'm all ears.



Nice try, but I caught you out. You damn sure did not post GM communication. Nevermind that it's against the rules to do so, probably against the rules to claim you did so too.

She did. Here. GM Grimmi, posting on 2008.07.10 at 17:18:00.


You do realize that posting GM communication and quoting a GM's forum post are different things, right?

"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.

Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#578 - 2014-06-19 20:55:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
Ganking empty freighters = working as intended.
Is there really any actual intent there? Seems more like giving the freedom to act and letting whatever happens happen.


I don't mean working as intended as in "intentional Dev mechanics aimed at blowing up your ship", I mean as long as people are doing that kind of ****, Eve is still Eve.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#579 - 2014-06-19 20:55:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You do realize that posting GM communication and quoting a GM's forum post are different things, right?

Heh … fair enough. Although if that's a distinction you're going to insist on, you'll have to admit that you were wrong to accuse Sarah of claiming to have posted "communication"; she speaks only of "statements."

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)

Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#580 - 2014-06-19 20:59:21 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sarah Flynt wrote:
I've quoted several CCP Dev/GM statements in earlier posts in this thread which illustrate under which circumstances it is a valid tactic. If you can show me a single official and more recent statement that overrules them, I'm all ears.



Nice try, but I caught you out. You damn sure did not post GM communication. Nevermind that it's against the rules to do so, probably against the rules to claim you did so too.

Got anything better, or are you just going to make spurious claims based on a poor interpretation of a dev post? Because we already have a guy on the forum who does that, and Dinsdale guards his title fiercely.


At least you got one thing right: I never posted private GM communication. All DEV/GM quotes were taken from this thread on the official forums: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=818978

I suggest you read it to its full extend in order to also get the context of each CCP response.

Until you can come up with something substantial (e.g. public and verifiable quotes from official CCP people) that overrule CCP's responses in the above thread, I don't see any ground for further discussion with you about this topic.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !