These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1201 - 2014-07-03 18:40:57 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:


No no no you are sadly mistaken. It's not that ganking is extremely difficult and takes hours of coordination. It's the fact that it's difficult to find enough asshats in Eve who's sole desire is to **** off players for flying a hauler or mining ship. Every single one of us could undock today and shoot random pods or ships that are afk'ing or even actively flying around with no intention to PvP in high sec but guess what? That's not fun for a large majority of the EvE player base


Bring back 2003 and my corp will show you what a high sec slaughter looks like.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1202 - 2014-07-03 18:45:29 UTC
karma balancer wrote:
And like i have never witnessed a miner spawning concord in the belt they are mining in to try to stop me killing them.

By the way ...EPIC FAILURE

http://i.imgur.com/UFeJSd7.jpg?1


I have seen several mining ops do it. It makes for at least 2 hours of concord protection.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#1203 - 2014-07-03 18:48:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Why should a Ganker not organize and co-ordinate a strike, when everyone else has to, to survive the gank?

You got that backwards. Why don't the targets organise when the gankers have to (due to how difficult the game has made it for them)? Simple: because there's little reason for them to do so. The fact that gankers organise and targets do not perfectly illustrate the imbalance.

The fact that an organisation such as CODE only really succeeds at any level against paper-thin and unfitted ships also perfectly illustrates the imbalance. So yes. It is far too difficult — neither the level of organisation nor the very narrow target selection should be necessary.


Since I started EvE Ganking has always been about blowing up Indies, miners in particular. Yes you do get the odd occasion a combat ship gets Ganked, but lets be honest, it's rare. Usually they are tricked into combat.

You talk about paperthin? I seen Code take out 2 Hulks 1 Orca, AND had time to take out a POD. Like everything this game should be. Organisation, should be the only route to success.

If Miners or haulers do not organise their play. They are more than likely to become a victim of a Gank, than not. Just because they don't have to, does not make it imbalanced. It makes them an easier "Target", which is right up Ganker's street.






Iain Cariaba
#1204 - 2014-07-03 18:49:45 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Conar wrote:
I am not asking for change, just an honest answer that there is an imbalance.
Yes, there is an imblance: ganking is far too difficult and rare right now and could use a few buffs. Dialling back the CONCORD response would probably be a good first step.


Far too difficult? Oh come on. I sat, and watch Code the other night literally non stop Gank all night long. You are NEVER going to tell me Ganking is far to difficult, after that display.

Speaking as someone who is just now getting into the suicide ganking business, yes, it is difficult if you don't want to just throw isk away. It takes a lot of coordination to successfully gank a target, and the bigger the target the more coordination is required.

Why, you ask, am I just now starting to suicide gank? Because of threads like this. Every time ganking gets nerfed, the gankers adapt, and the carebears call for more nerfs rather than adapt themselves. I am a firm believer in Feyd's 'Kill it Forward' program.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1205 - 2014-07-03 19:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Since I started EvE Ganking has always been about blowing up Indies, miners in particular. Yes you do get the odd occasion a combat ship gets Ganked, but lets be honest, it's rare. Usually they are tricked into combat.

You talk about paperthin? I seen Code take out 2 Hulks 1 Orca, AND had time to take out a POD. Like everything this game should be. Organisation, should be the only route to success.
…so, again, why do the gankers have to organise and the targets do not? They can survive just fine without that organisation by actually fitting their ships. The targets you talk about were most likely not tanked at all or anti-tanked to make them easier than ever to blow up. Yes. They are paper thin — the Hulk in particular is designed to be paper thin, and while the Orca can be made to stand a lot of punishment, it is just as easy to make it an easier kill than some barges (and guess which way the miners go on that choice…).

Gankers that organise and go after ships that are easier than the baseline of an already easy-to-kill ship gets a few kills. If you don't see the massive imbalance in that one-sided requirement, I just don't know what to say.

Quote:
Just because they don't have to, does not make it imbalanced.
Yes it does, by very definition.
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#1206 - 2014-07-03 19:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Organic Lager
Iain Cariaba wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Conar wrote:
I am not asking for change, just an honest answer that there is an imbalance.
Yes, there is an imblance: ganking is far too difficult and rare right now and could use a few buffs. Dialling back the CONCORD response would probably be a good first step.


Far too difficult? Oh come on. I sat, and watch Code the other night literally non stop Gank all night long. You are NEVER going to tell me Ganking is far to difficult, after that display.

Speaking as someone who is just now getting into the suicide ganking business, yes, it is difficult if you don't want to just throw isk away. It takes a lot of coordination to successfully gank a target, and the bigger the target the more coordination is required.

Why, you ask, am I just now starting to suicide gank? Because of threads like this. Every time ganking gets nerfed, the gankers adapt, and the carebears call for more nerfs rather than adapt themselves. I am a firm believer in Feyd's 'Kill it Forward' program.


As someone who has also just recently tried suicide ganking what exactly did you find difficult about it?

I mean most of the missioners we ganked didn't even shoot back.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1207 - 2014-07-03 19:58:43 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:


As someone who has also just recently tried suicide ganking what exactly did you find difficult about it?

I mean most of the missioners we ganked didn't even shoot back.


I can guarantee you that you put in a lot more effort than your targets did.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#1208 - 2014-07-03 20:02:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Gankers that organise and go after ships that are easier than the baseline of an already easy-to-kill ship gets a few kills. If you don't see the massive imbalance in that one-sided requirement, I just don't know what to say.

You can Gank quite adequately without much organisation. Just fly to any Roid belt with an AFK miner. I just did it now. Within 5 minutes I had scanned and evaluated a target. They were none the wiser. Retriever with no tank. 0.7 security. What 3 Cata's? (I genuinely do not know).

Tippia wrote:
malcovas henderson wrote:
Just because they don't have to, does not make it imbalanced.
Yes it does, by very definition.

Just as Gankers do not have to organise their Ganks. Success and Failure of any operation is down to how much you are prepared.

To survive a Gank you have to be prepared, organised and very lucky. Those that don't bother get Ganked. Like the Gankers that don't prepare, organise, and don't get lucky. The have a less successful Ganking session.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#1209 - 2014-07-03 20:15:57 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tippia wrote:


Gankers that organise and go after ships that are easier than the baseline of an already easy-to-kill ship gets a few kills. If you don't see the massive imbalance in that one-sided requirement, I just don't know what to say.

You can Gank quite adequately without much organisation. Just fly to any Roid belt with an AFK miner. I just did it now. Within 5 minutes I had scanned and evaluated a target. They were none the wiser. Retriever with no tank. 0.7 security. What 3 Cata's? (I genuinely do not know).

as far as i can tell you're agreeing with each other? Straight that miner doesn't deserve to survive a gank, and if you chose to gank, you've earned advantage through effort and forethought

why should this gank require social organisation as well?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1210 - 2014-07-03 20:21:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
malcovas Henderson wrote:
You can Gank quite adequately without much organisation. Just fly to any Roid belt with an AFK miner. I just did it now. Within 5 minutes I had scanned and evaluated a target. They were none the wiser. Retriever with no tank. 0.7 security. What 3 Cata's? (I genuinely do not know).
…so you spent 60 man-minutes (compared to his 1); you were entirely reliant on what he did; and you made… how much?

Quote:
To survive a Gank you have to be prepared, organised and very lucky.
Not really, no.
To survive a gank, you have to fit a tank and be very very very very unlucky (or just stupid) to be targeted to begin with.

So, again: why do the gankers have to organise and go after a very tiny selection of targets (entirely reliant on the stupidity of the target), and the targets do not? Oh, and why is it that gankers — even if they take every precaution they can — still have to be lucky many times over to get a positive result, and the targets don't?

If there is any imbalance at all, it is massively in the favour of the target. Any argument based on balance must come in one of two forms: either more power to the gankers, or something that could only (with the highest degree of generosity) be described as sheer idiocy without even the slightest hint of connection to any kind of rational thinking or reality.
Aalysia Valkeiper
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1211 - 2014-07-03 20:21:27 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

as far as i can tell you're agreeing with each other? Straight that miner doesn't deserve to survive a gank, and if you chose to gank, you've earned advantage through effort and forethought

why should this gank require social organisation as well?


You know, this is going to sound strange coming from someone as furvently against gankers as I am.

AFK miners and AFK haulers DESERVE to be ganked.
Hell, I would put aside my distaste for combative PvP to do the deed, myself.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#1212 - 2014-07-03 20:32:49 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
AFK miners and AFK haulers DESERVE to be ganked.
Hell, I would put aside my distaste for combative PvP to do the deed, myself.

i would say that

- a person entering a game where ganking is a known, legal and practiced form of gameplay
- and who then does not make effort to avoid being ganked

does not deserve not to be ganked
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#1213 - 2014-07-03 21:35:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
so you spent 60 man-minutes (compared to his 1); you were entirely reliant on what he did; and you made… how much?

Way to go in forgetting so much about what is available in game. I am sure a good Talos pilot could Alpha an Untanked Hull. If you are going to do it in Cata's then ofc you should be organising it. Or are you saying that Noob ships should be able to alpha untanked Hulls. The Indy is also reliant on what the Gankers do

tippia wrote:
Not really, no.
To survive a gank, you have to fit a tank and be very very very very unlucky (or just stupid) to be targeted to begin with.

This is blatantly untrue. No matter how you tank. A Gank can and will take you out. It just improves your chances of survival. As in anything in EvE the more aware and prepared you are the less likely anything bad happens.

Tippia wrote:
So, again: why do the gankers have to organise and go after a very tiny selection of targets (entirely reliant on the stupidity of the target), and the targets do not? Oh, and why is it that gankers — even if they take every precaution they can — still have to be lucky many times over to get a positive result, and the targets don't?

Quite simply that is the Gankers prey. They don't want to shoot combat ships. They want to shoot soft easy targets. You also seem to just ignore that, tanking your hull is organising yourself against Ganking. Same as being at the keyboard. same as being aware of your surroundings. It is all Organising against Ganking. Those that don't do this are Ganked.

Ganking is not hard pure and simple. The fact that stupid makes it even easier is the icing on the cake as far as Gankers are concerned.


malcovas Henderson
THoF
#1214 - 2014-07-03 21:37:15 UTC
Aalysia Valkeiper wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:

as far as i can tell you're agreeing with each other? Straight that miner doesn't deserve to survive a gank, and if you chose to gank, you've earned advantage through effort and forethought

why should this gank require social organisation as well?


You know, this is going to sound strange coming from someone as furvently against gankers as I am.

AFK miners and AFK haulers DESERVE to be ganked.
Hell, I would put aside my distaste for combative PvP to do the deed, myself.


I am not against Gankers per se. I detest AFKers a lot more than Gankers that's for sure.
Cancel Align NOW
Parahutihuti Pukukai
#1215 - 2014-07-03 21:41:06 UTC
Casually reading the last four pages seems to indicate most people are in agreement. To survive in Eve Online treating it as a multi-player PVP game is beneficial.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1216 - 2014-07-03 22:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Way to go in forgetting so much about what is available in game.
Way to go in not answering the question and going off on a very odd and disconnected straw-man tangent.

Quote:
The Indy is also reliant on what the Gankers do
Not really, no. He's reliant on himself — it's his decisions that determine the encounter. The gankers are pretty much entirely reactive in the process.

Quote:
This is blatantly untrue. No matter how you tank. A Gank can and will take you out.
Can, yes. Will, no. You could conceivably be taken out of you tank, but you won't be because the gankers will go after a target they can readily kill with what they have at hand. And again, that's if you're so very very very very unlucky as to be targeted to begin with. So all you need to survive is a tank and some bad luck.

Quote:
Quite simply that is the Gankers prey. They don't want to shoot combat ships. They want to shoot soft easy targets.
…aaaand? Why do the gankers have to organise and go after a small selection of targets and the targets not organise at all? Just because the gankers pick among the targets that are available to them does not mean that the selection is ridiculously small and that this in and of itself highlights a massive imbalance.

And no, playing that tanking your hull is not organising. Tanking your hull is fitting your ship. Absolutely no organisation is needed. Nice Pathetic try on the false equivocation though. Or wait… no, it is nice, because when people start pulling out the fallacies like that, and like with the entire initial straw man, you already know where it's headed. Twisted

Quote:
Ganking is not hard pure and simple.
…and yet it is far too difficult, as proven by its rarity, the minute target selection, the vanishingly small number of people doing it, and that it relies entirely on the litany of mistakes the target has to do in order to enable them.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#1217 - 2014-07-03 22:38:36 UTC
Miners should not have to "gear up" to mine in an area that is supposedly protected by law just like I don't go around wearing a bullet proof vest in the middle of the USA. If I go to Somalia damn right I will be geared up, but in an area that is "protected"...makes no sense.

And why should gankers have to organize to kill a target in hi-sec? Really? Does the question even have to be asked?

People are so hooked on their own little world that a) they will protect it from change even if the change will be the only thing to grow this game and b) completely lose touch with how things would work if their were real societies in EvE instead of these bastardized constructs that are passed off as civilization.

Punishment does not equal the crime in EvE, please discuss that point.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1218 - 2014-07-03 23:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nexus Day wrote:
Miners should not have to "gear up" to mine in an area that is supposedly protected by law just like I don't go around wearing a bullet proof vest in the middle of the USA.
Well, as soon as they implement such an area in EVE, I'm sure they can start thinking about skipping that part.

If they want to do it in highsec, though — an area that doesn't really have any protection, only retribution as a cost disincentive — they most definitely should.

Quote:
And why should gankers have to organize to kill a target in hi-sec? Really? Does the question even have to be asked?
Since the targets don't have to and since the argument has been made that there is a lack of balance, yes. After all, that's the only real point of imbalance there is: one party have to organise and actually do some planning, and the other does not.

Quote:
Punishment does not equal the crime in EvE, please discuss that point.
We are. The punishment should be reduced a fair bit. In some cases, it should probably be voided completely since it's more of a service to the community than a crime, but that would require some pretty sophisticated intent- and activity-calculating pseudo-AI so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Cancel Align NOW
Parahutihuti Pukukai
#1219 - 2014-07-03 23:29:53 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Miners should not have to "gear up" to mine in an area that is supposedly protected by law just like I don't go around wearing a bullet proof vest in the middle of the USA. If I go to Somalia damn right I will be geared up, but in an area that is "protected"...makes no sense.


Then scrap the second amendment. The scenario you describe is the reason the second exists. Individuals have the right and responsibility to defend themselves.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1220 - 2014-07-03 23:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
The reason for the confict is simple.


Premise 1
All people that play online games are dysfunctional and suffer a range of neurosis and mental instabilities as outlined in DSM V.


Premise 2.
Eve attracts and is is designed for sociopaths with Antisocial personality disorder allowing them to manifest behavior they cannot manifest in real life.

Premise 3.
Eve also attracts individuals with Avoidant personality disorder who play EVE as an escape from real people and social contact.

Assumption.
People with Antisocial personality disorder and people with Avoidant personality disorder are inherently incompatible.



Conclusion.
The two most common types of neurosis displayed by EVE players are inherently incompatible and no agreement will ever be reached.