These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1101 - 2014-07-02 00:24:58 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:


Believe it or not, many people find ganking boring af. Doesn't mean it's balanced.


A few dosen die out of millions of trips and you think the ganking is out of control and unbalanced?

Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1102 - 2014-07-02 00:31:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gavin Dax wrote:


Believe it or not, many people find ganking boring af. Doesn't mean it's balanced.


A few dosen die out of millions of trips and you think the ganking is out of control and unbalanced?


Inb4 "no one should be able to gank in high sec".
Paranoid Loyd
#1103 - 2014-07-02 00:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
Gavin Dax wrote:

lol ur funny

I'm done responding now since this isn't worth my time. You're stretching those points there though Tippia, your argument is getting thin.


What's funny is you are arguing about something you admittedly have no experience in dealing with and you think you can come to a conclusion solely by your perception of it.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1104 - 2014-07-02 00:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Gavin Dax wrote:
lol ur funny

I'm done responding now since
…you are incapable of actually provide any kind of rational argument or supporting evidence to back up your point. I understand — that's ok. These are not exactly obscure or esoteric facts we're presenting to you, but stuff that's very well known for anyone who has actually bothered to look into the matter, so it's hard for you to actually argue against them.

If you've honestly decided to stop perpetuating the silly myths of the untouchable and risk-free gank and instead accept these facts, then that's excellent news.
Telegram Sam
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1105 - 2014-07-02 00:38:56 UTC
Myth debunked: Perpetual motion is impossible. Does not apply to ganking - anti-ganking threads.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1106 - 2014-07-02 01:13:03 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:


I never said your gameplay should be wiped out.


While you literally did not say this, you functionally did. Nothing in the history of the game has been nerfed more than ganking. It's gotten to the point where, to die at all in highsec, you either need to fall for obvious aggression tricks or the other guys have to massively outnumber you.

Highsec needs to be made less safe, not more safe. The only reason it's not already perfect safety is because there is no shortage of mental deficients who absolutely refuse to lift a finger to defend themselves.

If you have a brain in your head however, it is next to impossible to die.

Buff ganking.

Quote:

As others have already said, the effort required to protect yourself in HS is simply too great. That's why nobody ever does it. Why don't we ever see bait freighters in HS? Right now, there's simply nothing to make that type of gameplay worth it for the other party.


It all comes down to effort, lol. You want people to not have to use any.

Tough luck. You know what makes it worth it to bother protecting yourself? Gankers. Otherwise, there is zero reason to do anything besides afk like a window licker in highsec in open space all goddamn day. As a matter of fact, that's pretty much the case anyway besides exceedingly rare occasions.

Quote:

And for the record, I almost never fly in high sec.


Believe me, it shows.

Quote:

I just happen to realize that this aspect of the game is imbalanced and attracts only one particular type of player to the game while deterring others.


It's supposed to. It is intended to deter people who don't want to bother with *gasp* effort, and encourage those who actually bother to play the game correctly. The former people die in amusing and profitable ways, and the latter stay alive.


Quote:

I play for real PvP. I don't have a problem with that play-style though, it's just that it shouldn't be a risk-free "I win" button in HS, which it is.


Lol @ "real PvP". Unless they've finally disqualified carebears from counting as real players (which is something I'd be just fine with personally), then it is "real PvP". As much as whatever you get yourself up to.

Oh, and as for your second sentence. Our risk is determined entirely by the victim. Their failure is our gain. Which, I might add, is working as intended.

"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.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1107 - 2014-07-02 01:35:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=Gavin Dax]



Lol @ "real PvP". Unless they've finally disqualified carebears from counting as real players (which is something I'd be just fine with personally), then it is "real PvP". As much as whatever you get yourself up to.




If something is on autopilot or is a bot it seems hard to define that as PvP - you are fighting a computer.

Not that I see anything wrong with ganking AFK miners and autopilot freighters by the way. Go for it. its a legitimate style of play.

But to call it PvP is stretching it, you are relying on some sort of semantic argument about how PvP is defined. The real life player is off making coffee or shagging the next door neighbor.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1108 - 2014-07-02 01:46:48 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=Gavin Dax]



Lol @ "real PvP". Unless they've finally disqualified carebears from counting as real players (which is something I'd be just fine with personally), then it is "real PvP". As much as whatever you get yourself up to.




If something is on autopilot or is a bot it seems hard to define that as PvP - you are fighting a computer.

Not that I see anything wrong with ganking AFK miners and autopilot freighters by the way. Go for it. its a legitimate style of play.

But to call it PvP is stretching it, you are relying on some sort of semantic argument about how PvP is defined. The real life player is off making coffee or shagging the next door neighbor.


So you seem to be in complete agreement with the New Order's definition of "bot aspirancy".

That's the other side of the coin, by the way. If they cease counting as real players when they do those things, then killing them is not only acceptable, but highly warranted.

In any case my personal definition has been for some time that unless it's quite clearly an NPC or a structure, then it's PvP. Afterall, the market is PvP in a very clear sense, regardless of whether the other guy is online to see me undercut/scam/outbid him. I am intending to do harm to the assets of another player character, another capsuleer.

"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.

Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#1109 - 2014-07-02 02:16:40 UTC
As a suicide ganker, I'm gonna have to say that my play style is not a problem. please don't nerf it any more.

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com

Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#1110 - 2014-07-02 02:20:50 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
lol ur funny

I'm done responding now since this isn't worth my time. You're stretching those points there though Tippia, your argument is getting thin.


Lol you're not.

Listen "valued ally," comparatively speaking, if Tippia's arguments are thin (and they aren't) then yours are non existent.

The reality is, the effort required to avoid a ganking is trivial, but non zero. The vast majority can't be bothered to take even the tiniest measure to use the ever increasing amount of tools available to protect themselves. The lazy and (occasionally) unlucky die. Please join them.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.

Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#1111 - 2014-07-02 09:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Mayaki
Galaxy Pig wrote:
As a suicide ganker, I'm gonna have to say that my play style is not a problem. please don't nerf it any more.


Your problem is you are terrible at begging. However all is not lost just try some of that level 5 James315 butt kissing on CCP.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#1112 - 2014-07-02 10:57:43 UTC
Thomas Mayaki wrote:
Galaxy Pig wrote:
As a suicide ganker, I'm gonna have to say that my play style is not a problem. please don't nerf it any more.


Your problem is you are terrible at begging. However all is not lost just try some of that level 5 James315 butt kissing on CCP.

I thought doing level 5s requires going out to lowsec.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#1113 - 2014-07-02 11:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
ergherhdfgh wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
ergherhdfgh wrote:
However concord does protect gankers from anyone coming to clear them off a gate before they do their job. I see that as a huge imbalance in game mechanics.
Do you mean -10.0 gankers?

Or even positive sec status alts that can be safely locked in advance, and then either ECM'd or Alpha'd 1 second after they go GCC?

Are you sure you know the game mechanics?


Yes I'm sure that I am I'm wondering if you are. Yes I understand that you can attack these guys once they attack. When you travel through any of the high 0.5 sec gates on the main pipes you see dozens of gankers sitting there and I know of no ship that can lock up dozens of ships at once so you need wait and see who shoots and wait for them to go red before you can lock and either ECM them or shoot at them in either case they only plan on making it about 15 seconds or so anyway so if you can't even attempt to shoot or jam them for 5 or so seconds you are not taking that ship out of the equation only reducing it's effectiveness.

For gankers to add another ship or two just incase you have help which they will do if more people start having escorts is not a huge expense increase but having escorts is.



Escorts in the same corp web the freighter, which causes the freighter to align rapidly which makes it difficult to bump before it moves (and they don't generally want to gank freighters under the gate guns directly) and doubles the jumps per hour traversed by the freighter. ie if it was economically worth flying the freighter, then its worth adding a webber. If you have your webber on voice (or its your alt), then it can always be in range of the freighter when the freighter drops gate cloak, where as potential bumpers get a random roll on that.

Also its rare that a gank squad has (a) a lot of extra people and (b) no -10s, so as soon as the -10s show up, your escorts can open fire whether or not the gank has started, and your escorts can actually bump the bumpers without opening fire.

Also there is nothing stopping an escort bumping a gank catalyst into deep fall off, where it will be useless for several critical seconds, ie you can actually blap one, and bump another, and reload and blap another.

lastly if somehow code had the resources to gank every autopiloting freighter, being a manual, webbed freighter pilot would be a very lucrative profession.

If you read the thread, you'll see I'm not the first person to point all this out.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#1114 - 2014-07-02 11:42:20 UTC
Gavin Dax wrote:
Ok. Punishments for ganking:
1. You get a kill right on you. So what? It's not like you gank with your incursion running character.


Funny, because I know plenty of people who gank on their main, including me.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Soylent Jade
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1115 - 2014-07-02 12:38:27 UTC
ITT: Lots of clueless carebears.

This thread inspired me to get in a couple freighter gank fleets recently. Thanks OP!

Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time

minerbumping.com

Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
#1116 - 2014-07-02 12:53:04 UTC
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37962755.jpg

They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.

**This IS my main so STFU.

Lenn Elei
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1117 - 2014-07-02 12:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lenn Elei
tl;dr: I was wrong Oops
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1118 - 2014-07-02 12:59:39 UTC
Lenn Elei wrote:
tl;dr: a player with Criminal Timer shouldn't be able to abandon wreck

I'm not against the ganking aspect of Eve, however, I think that it's far too easy for the killer to abandon the wreck and let a neutral player loot it without any trouble.

You're in the street, someone steal your nice shiny bag and give it to someone else: do you really think the cops or even yourself should only run after the first guy (for 15 minutes) and leave the second with all your stuff? ;)

Therefore, my simple suggestion to limit this without nerfing too much the gankers is to disable or at least delay the possibility of abandoning a wreck when it comes from unauthorized actions?

Put it simple: someone with a criminal timer isn't able to take some actions: warping, docking, etc. and abandoning wrecks should be also forbidden.

In High Sec, that would mean that when someone ganks a ship, he couldn't simply abandon the wreck and let anyone, including that shiny neutral Orca waiting a few km away, loot it as he would immediately become suspect! I think this would had lot of fun ^^ and hopefully some fights!

Of course, that doesn't concern WT/NPC/legal wrecks.


Just one more nerf.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1119 - 2014-07-02 13:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lenn Elei wrote:
I'm not against the ganking aspect of Eve, however, I think that it's far too easy for the killer to abandon the wreck and let a neutral player loot it without any trouble.
Ehm… so the impossible is deemed “far too easy” in matters that relate to ganking and is now grounds for just one more nerf? You people are really going off the deep end here. Ugh

You understand that there is no wreck for the killer to abandon, right? So yeah, no. Please provide a rational reason why ganking needs to be nerfed in any way whatsoever.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1120 - 2014-07-02 13:40:51 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lenn Elei wrote:
I'm not against the ganking aspect of Eve, however, I think that it's far too easy for the killer to abandon the wreck and let a neutral player loot it without any trouble.
Ehm… so the impossible is deemed “far too easy” in matters that relate to ganking and is now grounds for just one more nerf? You people are really going off the deep end here. Ugh

You understand that there is no wreck for the killer to abandon, right? So yeah, no. Please provide a rational reason why ganking needs to be nerfed in any way whatsoever.
LMAO

Lenn, you're an amateur carebear! This absurdity that I just found is what a pro carebear should post!

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!